Skip navigation

A System Master Plan for Massachusetts Corrections, MA Division of Capital Asset Management, 2011

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
STV Incorporated

Carter Goble Lee

FINAL REPORT

A System Master Plan
for Massachusetts Corrections
MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF CAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT
CORRECTONS
MASTER PLAN

The Corrections Master Plan
The Final Report

DOC 0801ST1

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FINAL REPORT – DECEMBER 2011

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

ii
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FINAL REPORT DECEMBER 2011

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

iii
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FINAL REPORT DECEMBER 2011

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary

ix
1

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1
CURRENT SYSTEM .................................................................................................................................................................. 2
CMP GOALS .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3
2020 BEDSPACE PROJECTIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Bedspace Projection Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 3
2020 Bedspace Projection ................................................................................................................................................... 4
BEDSPACE CAPACITY REDEFINED....................................................................................................................................... 4
Design Capacity / Rated Capacity........................................................................................................................................ 5
Corrections Master Plan (CMP) Baseline Capacity .............................................................................................................. 5
Potential Capacity ................................................................................................................................................................ 6
2020 BEDSPACE SHORTFALL ................................................................................................................................................ 6
THE BASIS FOR ELIMINATING BARRIERS TO SYSTEM EFFICIENCY................................................................................ 7
Regions of the Commonwealth ............................................................................................................................................ 7
ROLES FOR INCARCERATION ............................................................................................................................................... 8
THE STRATEGIC CAPITAL PLAN ........................................................................................................................................... 9
SPECIAL CUSTODY POPULATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Women Offenders ................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Medical Population ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
Mental Health Population ................................................................................................................................................... 12
Pre-Release / Reentry Population ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Sex Offender Treatment Population ................................................................................................................................... 15
Summary of Capital Requirements for Special Custody Offenders ................................................................................... 16
Civilly Committed Population.............................................................................................................................................. 17
GENERAL CUSTODY INCARCERATION .............................................................................................................................. 17
SUMMARY OF NEW BEDSPACES BY REGION ................................................................................................................... 19
ADDITIONAL STATE-WIDE IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 20
Pre-Arraignment Incarceration ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Technology ......................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Inmate Transportation ........................................................................................................................................................ 22
Accessibility ........................................................................................................................................................................ 22
Sustainability ...................................................................................................................................................................... 23
SUMMARY OF THE 2020 BEDSPACE NEEDS AND COST .................................................................................................. 25
New Bedspaces and Potential Capacity Improvements..................................................................................................... 25
Existing Facility Improvements ........................................................................................................................................... 26
PHASE 1 CAPITAL PLAN ....................................................................................................................................................... 27
Phase 1 – New Bedspaces ................................................................................................................................................ 27
Phase 1 – Potential Capacity Improvements and Existing Conditions Upgrades .............................................................. 29
PHASE 1 INITIAL STEPS ........................................................................................................................................................ 29

CMP Summary

31

iv
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FINAL REPORT DECEMBER 2011

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Chapter 1 Clarification of Incarceration Needs

34

CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES............................................................................................................... 34
CURRENT POPULATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 35
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS IMPACTING INCARCERATION / POPULATION PROJECTIONS ................................................. 35
Incarceration Assumptions ................................................................................................................................................. 36
System Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................ 37
BEDSPACE PROJECTION METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 37
BASELINE CAPACITY REDEFINED ...................................................................................................................................... 39
REGIONS OF THE COMMONWEALTH .................................................................................................................................. 50
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 52

Chapter 2 Existing Facility Improvements and Repairs

55

BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................................................... 55
CURRENT SYSTEM ................................................................................................................................................................ 55
CAMIS / DEFERRED MAINTENANCE REQUESTS ............................................................................................................... 56
CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZING DEFERRED MAINTENANCE REQUESTS .......................................................................... 57
POTENTIAL CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 58
SIGNIFICANT CONDITION ISSUES ....................................................................................................................................... 59
REFERENCE SOURCES FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES .............................................. 59

Chapter 3 Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration Needs

61

ROLES FOR INCARCERATION ............................................................................................................................................. 61
THE BASIS FOR ELIMINATING BARRIERS TO SYSTEM EFFICIENCY.............................................................................. 64
OPPORTUNITIES FOR A MORE EFFICIENT SYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 64
A MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL APPROACH TO FUNDING THE NEED.................................................................................... 67

Chapter 4 Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options

69

CMP GOALS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 69
STRATEGY OPTIONS OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................................... 71
GENERAL CUSTODY – MALE ............................................................................................................................................... 72
Male Pretrial ....................................................................................................................................................................... 72
General Population Male Offenders ................................................................................................................................... 73
SPECIAL POPULATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 75
Pre-Release ....................................................................................................................................................................... 75
Women ............................................................................................................................................................................... 77
Medical ............................................................................................................................................................................... 79
Mental Health ..................................................................................................................................................................... 80
ADDITIONAL STATE-WIDE IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 81
Pre-arraignment ................................................................................................................................................................. 81
Technology ......................................................................................................................................................................... 82
Transportation .................................................................................................................................................................... 83

Chapter 5 The Strategic Capital Plan

84

PART 1: SPECIAL POPULATIONS .........................................................................................................................85
WOMEN OFFENDERS ............................................................................................................................................................ 85
Current Conditions in the Commonwealth.......................................................................................................................... 86
CMP Goals for Women ...................................................................................................................................................... 88
CMP Regional Strategy ...................................................................................................................................................... 89

v
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FINAL REPORT DECEMBER 2011

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Population Projections........................................................................................................................................................ 89
Comparison of Facility Capacity to Overall Bedspace Projections..................................................................................... 91
Potential Impact of Pre-Release on Bedspace Needs ....................................................................................................... 93
Components of the Recommended Plan ........................................................................................................................... 98
Phasing of the Recommended Plan by Region................................................................................................................ 104
MEDICAL POPULATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 110
Planning Basis.................................................................................................................................................................. 110
Components of the Recommended Plan ......................................................................................................................... 114
MENTAL HEALTH POPULATION......................................................................................................................................... 115
Planning Basis.................................................................................................................................................................. 115
Civil Commitments ........................................................................................................................................................... 118
Components of the Recommended Plan – Mental Health Population ............................................................................. 119
Planning Basis.................................................................................................................................................................. 123
Components of the Plan – Male Pre-release ................................................................................................................... 129
Phasing of the Recommended Plan ................................................................................................................................. 131
SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT POPULATION .................................................................................................................... 133
Planning Basis.................................................................................................................................................................. 133
Components of the Recommended Plan ......................................................................................................................... 134
SUMMARY OF SPECIAL POPULATION BEDSPACE NEEDS............................................................................................ 135

PART 2: GENERAL CUSTODY ............................................................................................................................. 137
Planning Basis.................................................................................................................................................................. 137
Components of the Recommended Plan ......................................................................................................................... 148
Impact of Replacing Modular Wood Housing ................................................................................................................... 149
A Regional Plan / Phasing of the Recommended Plan .................................................................................................... 150

PART 3: SUMMARY OF NEW BEDSPACES BY REGION ................................................................................... 154
PART 4: PRE-ARRAIGNMENT INCARCERATION ............................................................................................... 158
Planning Basis.................................................................................................................................................................. 158
Components of the Recommended Plan ......................................................................................................................... 160
The Cost of Meeting the Pre-Arraignment Bedspace Needs ........................................................................................... 161

PART 5: TECHNOLOGY........................................................................................................................................ 162
Planning Basis.................................................................................................................................................................. 162
Components of the Integrated Technology Plan .............................................................................................................. 164
Cost of Meeting the Need................................................................................................................................................. 165

PART 6: INMATE TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................................. 167
Planning Basis.................................................................................................................................................................. 167
The Cost of Improved Inmate Transportation................................................................................................................... 173
Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................... 173

PART 7: ACCESSIBILITY ....................................................................................................................................... 174
521 CMR, the Rules and Regulations of the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (MAAB) ................................. 174
Title II of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) ........................................................................................................... 175
Title II of the American with Disabilities Act as it applies to Correctional Facilities .......................................................... 176

PART 8: SUSTAINABILITY ..................................................................................................................................... 181
Sustainability Strategies in the Corrections Master Plan.................................................................................................. 181
Executive Order 484......................................................................................................................................................... 182

vi
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FINAL REPORT DECEMBER 2011

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Energy projects by DCAM Energy Team ......................................................................................................................... 183

Chapter 6 Implementation Plan

184

METHOD FOR ESTIMATING COSTS ................................................................................................................................... 184
Capital Costs – New Bedspaces ...................................................................................................................................... 185
Capital Costs – Existing Facility Improvements ............................................................................................................... 186
Operating Costs – New Beds ........................................................................................................................................... 187
THE COST OF MEETING 2020 BEDSPACE NEEDS ........................................................................................................... 188
CMP Baseline Capacity with the Current Classification System ...................................................................................... 189
CMP Baseline Capacity with the Proposed Classification System ................................................................................... 189
Potential Capacity with the Current Classification System ............................................................................................... 190
Potential Capacity with the Proposed Classification System ........................................................................................... 191
Existing Facility Improvements ......................................................................................................................................... 192
Summary of 2020 Cost Implications................................................................................................................................. 192
PHASE 1 CAPITAL PLAN ..................................................................................................................................................... 193
Phase 1 – New Bedspaces .............................................................................................................................................. 193
Phase 1 – Potential Capacity Improvements and Existing Conditions Upgrades ............................................................ 195
PHASE 1 INITIAL STEPS ...................................................................................................................................................... 196

Appendix A - Sheriff Dept. Existing Facility Briefs

199

HOUSING CAPACITY TABLE LEGEND ......................................................................................................................... 200
Barnstable County Correctional Facility ........................................................................................................................... 201
Berkshire County Jail and House of Correction ............................................................................................................... 205
Bristol County Jail and House of Correction..................................................................................................................... 209
Bristol County Jail and House of Correction..................................................................................................................... 213
Dukes County Jail and House of Correction .................................................................................................................... 215
Essex County Alternative Center - Lawrence................................................................................................................... 219
Essex County Correctional Facility - Middleton ................................................................................................................ 223
Franklin County Jail and House of Correction .................................................................................................................. 227
Hampden Western Massachusetts Regional Women‟s Correctional Center ................................................................... 231
Hampden County Jail and House of Correction - Ludlow ................................................................................................ 235
Hampshire County Jail and House of Correction ............................................................................................................. 239
Middlesex County House of Correction ............................................................................................................................ 243
Middlesex County Jail ...................................................................................................................................................... 247
Norfolk County Correctional Center ................................................................................................................................. 249
Plymouth County Correctional Facility ............................................................................................................................. 253
Suffolk County House of Correction ................................................................................................................................. 257
Suffolk County Jail............................................................................................................................................................ 261
Worcester County Jail and House of Correction .............................................................................................................. 265

Appendix B - Department of Correction Existing Facility Briefs

271

HOUSING CAPACITY TABLE LEGEND ......................................................................................................................... 272
Bay State Correctional Center.......................................................................................................................................... 273
Boston Pre-release Center ............................................................................................................................................... 277
Bridgewater State Hospital ............................................................................................................................................... 281
Massachusetts Alcohol and Substance Abuse Center..................................................................................................... 285
Massachusetts Treatment Center .................................................................................................................................... 289
MCI Cedar Junction.......................................................................................................................................................... 293
MCI Concord .................................................................................................................................................................... 297
MCI Framingham.............................................................................................................................................................. 303

vii
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FINAL REPORT DECEMBER 2011

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

MCI Norfolk ...................................................................................................................................................................... 307
MCI Plymouth ................................................................................................................................................................... 313
MCI Shirley – Medium Security ........................................................................................................................................ 317
MCI Shirley – Minimum Security ...................................................................................................................................... 323
North Central Correctional Institution – ............................................................................................................................ 327
Minimum & Medium Security............................................................................................................................................ 327
Northeastern Correctional Center .................................................................................................................................... 335
Old Colony Correctional Center Medium.......................................................................................................................... 339
Old Colony Correctional Center – Minimum ..................................................................................................................... 343
Pondville Correctional Center........................................................................................................................................... 347
South Middlesex Correctional Center............................................................................................................................... 350
Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center ........................................................................................................................... 355

Appendix C – The Impact of Legislation on Development Options
Appendix D – Existing Wood Modular Facilities

359
369

viii
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FINAL REPORT DECEMBER 2011

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Acknowledgements
The following individuals are hereby acknowledged for their individual contributions to this important project.
Division of Capital Asset Management
David Perini, Commissioner
Michael L. McKimmey, Deputy Commissioner

Paula King, Regional Health Service Administrator
Linda Hermann Gomes, Regional Health Service Administrator
Cheryl Gilmour, Regional Health Service Administrator
Karen Bergeron, BSH-Superintendent
Tim LeMay, Oracle Developer – EOPSS-OTIS
Denise McDonough, Regional Health Service Administrator
Hollie Hoover, Analyst DOC
Gina Perez, ESC
Michael Thomas, MTC
Melanie Chabot, Program Coordinator
Rebecca LeBeau
Michael Thompson, Superintendent - PCC
Michelle Farrell, Executive Assistant
Marissa Cutts, Deputy Director
Daniel Calls
Chris Lanoue
Brian Sicuia
Ronald Gagne, Deputy Superintendent
Ted O'Donnell, Counsel
Maria Sousa, Interim CIO - Technology Services
Brian Silvia
Joann Lynds
David Nolan, Director - PDLV
Nancy White, General Counsel
Susan Martin, Director
Geralyn Riley
Larry Wein
Jim Hall
Diane Silva
Carolyn Vicari
Paul F. Ruane, Facility Administrator/Superintendent - NECC
Peter A. Pepe Jr., Superintendent - MCI Concord
John J. Jones, Deputy Superintendent - MCI Cedar Junction
Allison Hallett, Deputy Superintendent - MCI Cedar Junction
Wayne Whisler, Director of Engineering – BSCC
Douglas W. DeMoura, Director of Security – BPC
Brian Burgwinkle, Deputy Superintendent - LSCU
Pamm MacEachern, Deputy Superintendent - MASAC
Ken DeOrsey, Director of Security - MASAC
Lynn Bissonnette, Superintendent - MCI Framingham
Michael Grant Sr., Acting Superintendent - MCI Plymouth
Robert Murphy, Superintendent – MTC
Joe Bairos, Captain - NCCI
Gary Roden, Superintendent – NCCI
Karin Bergeron, Superintendent - OCCC
James A. Ferreira, Deputy Superintendent – OCCC
Stephen Carrier, Captain - SBCC
Mark McNamara, Director of Engineering Services – SBCC
Ernest Wessell, Correctional Program Officer – SBCC
Kelly Ryan, Superintendent – SMCC

Office of Planning, Design and Construction
Elizabeth Minnis, AIA, Co-Director of Programming
Tom H. Lewis, AIA, Deputy Director
Graham Knowland, Project Manager
Luciana Burdi, PhD, Program Manager
Selena Goldberg, Project Manager
Jennifer Campbell, Project Manager
Antonio Leite, Planning Assistant
Design and Construction
Michael J. Lambert, Director of Construction
Ronald Ferrara, Project Manager
James Ward, Project Manager
William DuLong, Project Manager
Zahra Assar, Project Manager
William Refuse, Project Manager
Barry Heidke, Project Manager
Steven O‟Connor, Project Manager
David Fang, Project Manager
Office of Facilities Maintenance & Management
Susan Kreusch, Program Manager
Office of Finance and Administration
Deborah Carr, Regional Planner
User Agencies:
Executive Office of Public Safety and Security
Mary Elizabeth Heffernan, Secretary of Public Safety & Security
Sandra McCroom, Under Secretary of Criminal Justice
Gregory I. Massing, General Counsel
Thomas Clark, Special Counsel for C.J.
Department of Correction
Harold W. Clarke, Commissioner
Veronica Madden, Deputy Commissioner
Ron Duval, Deputy Commissioner
Kenneth Nelson, Assistant Deputy Commissioner
Luis S. Spencer, Assist. Deputy Commissioner – Southern Sector
Terre Marshall, Assist. Deputy Commissioner – Clinical Services
Rhiana Kohl, PhD, Executive Director Strategic Planning &
Research
Jeffrey Quick, AIA, Director of Resource Management
Michelle Donaher, Director - Female Offender Services
Todd Gundlach, Deputy Director - Division of Resource
Management
Margret Bacon, Deputy Director - Division of Resource
Management
Peter Heffernan, Administrator VI Health Services
John O‟Malley, Director of Legislative Affairs
Elaine Chase, Regional Health Service Administrator

Massachusetts Sheriff Association
Jim Walsh, Executive Director

ix
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FINAL REPORT DECEMBER 2010

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Barnstable County Sheriff‟s Office
James M. Cummings, Sheriff
Michael R. Regan, Superintendent of Operations
Kathie Porteous, Assist. Deputy Superintendent - Inmates
Services
William Ferney, Re-Entry Coordinator
Ross Alper, Captain
Jennifer Thompson

Paula Wells
Thomas Lincoln
Maryann Leonczyk
Hampshire Sheriff‟s Department
Robert G. Garvey, Sheriff
Patrick Cahillane, Deputy Superintendent
Maureen Callahan, Assistant Deputy Superintendent
Jo-Anne Leahy
Kim Meyers

Berkshire County Sheriff‟s Office
Carmen Massimiano, Sheriff
John J. Quinn Jr., Deputy Superintendent
Thomas M. Mazzeo Jr., Assistant Deputy Superintendent
Jason Cuyler, Re-Entry Case Manager
Richard Clarke, Medical Director
Al Bianchi
Julia Sullivan
Keith Lang
Dan Sheridan

Middlesex Sheriff‟s Office
James V. DiPaola, Sheriff
Patrick Murphy, Superintendent
Scott A Brazis, Superintendent
Kenneth Leva, Assistant Superintendent
Paul Spencer, Assistant Superintendent
Sean McAdam, Assist. Superintendent/Program
Timothy Ryan, Assistant Deputy Superintendent
James Minnelli, Lieutenant
John Cormier, Captain/Maintenance
John Regan, Captain
Dick Barricelli, Construction Flotti, Sheriff
James Matesanz, Superintendent
Stephan Randall, ADS Support Service
Chris Dawley, Director of Re-Entry
Peter Perroncello, Superintendent of Operations
Tara Brown, Assist. Deputy Superintendent/Chief of Health
Services
Patricia Spatare
Maryann Pitts
Kristina Russo, Director of Psychological Services

Bristol County Sheriff‟s Department
Thomas M. Hodgson, Sheriff
George Vose, Superintendent
Pete Berthiaume, Assist. Superintendent – Civil Process
Romain Payant, Deputy Superintendent
Larry Sherman, Assistant Deputy Superintendent
Edward J. Nicolau, Director of Facilities
Jodi Hocket-Lotz, ADS Classification/Re-Entry
Kathleen Dennehy, (Former Superintendent)
Michael Livingstone, Directoack, Sheriff
David O‟Sullivan, Special Sheriff/Deputy Superintendent
Sarah Saltonstall, Assist. Health Care Director
Rose Mary Mok

Plymouth County Sheriff‟s Department
Joseph D. McDonald, Sheriff
Gerald Pudolsky, Special Sheriff
Brian H. Gilla, Superintendent
Antone Moniz, Assistant Superintendent
Patrick Lee, General Counsel
Paul Chiano
Clare Honen, Director of Health Services
George Gorgizian, Infectious Disease Coordinator
Marnie Tallon, Re-Entry Manager
April Rios
Michael Chaney
Joyce Nwosu

Essex County Sheriff‟s Department
Frank G. Cousins, Sheriff
Mike Marks, Superintendent
Leah Hamilton, Grant Admin
Kim Mutagh, Director – WIT
Rick Roaf, Special Sheriff
Jeff MaguiO
Wayne Ward, Health Services Administrator
Franklin County Sheriff‟s Office
Frederick B. Macdonald, Sheriff
Raymond Brown, Superintendent
Laura Waskiewicz
Jamise Capen

Suffolk County Sheriff‟s Department
Andrea J. Cabral, Sheriff
Gerald Horgan, Superintendent
Eugene Sumpter, Superintendent
Julie White, Assist. Deputy Superintendent
Deborah Driscoll, Chief of Operations and Planning
Gerry Walsh
John Sullivan
Amila DiFeo
Anthony Domagala, Medical Director
True-See Allah, Director of Re-Entry
Gregory Haugh

Hampden Sheriff‟s Department
Michael J. Ashe, Jr., Sheriff
J. John Ashe, Superintendent
Larry Lajoie, Assistant Deputy Superintendent
John Fitzgerald, Assistant Superintendent
Patricia Murphy, Assistant Superintendent
John Kenney, Assistant Superintendent
Martha Lyman, Research Director
David Asselin, Director of Support Services
Brian Leibel, Director of Health Services
Ed Weldon, Assistant Superintendent (Retired)

x
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FINAL REPORT – DECEMBER 2011

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Cindy Flores
Christina Ruccio
Joseph Casey, Captain
Clara Severin, Counsel
Geraldine Somers
Pauline Sweeney Burrill
Tom Groblewski

Karl Tannenbaum, CPCS
Eleanor Sinnott, BMC
Steve Price, OCC
Pat Horge, OCC
Tara McGuire, MDAA
Francis Wall, OCP
Linda Holt, MSC

Worcester Sheriff‟s Department
Guy Glodis, Sheriff/Superintendent
Jeff Turco, Special Sheriff/Deputy Superintendent
Peter Whitney, Assistant Deputy Superintendent
Luke Gallant, Assistant Deputy Superintendent
T. Hall, Superintendent
Kathleen Shultz
Cheryl Piper
William Hughes
Shaun Jenkins
Bernie Rivera, IT Support
Brian Knuuttila (Retired)
John Buckley (Retired)

Consultants:

Massachusetts Court System
Phil McCue, AODC
James Morton, AOJC, Case Manager
Jane Strickland, AOJC
Robert A. Mulligan, AOTC
Robert P. Panneton, Chief of Staff, AOTC
Francis J. Carney, Jr., Ph. D., Executive Director, AOTC
Pamela M. Dashiell, Esq., Director of Planning and Policy
Development, AOTC
Mary F. Rafferty, Senior Staff Consultant/Organizational
Communications, AOTC
Michael J. Jordan, Court Capital Projects, Director, AOTC
Stephen J. Carroll, Court Facilities, AOTC, Director
Tom Haskins, AOTC
Dana Leavitt, AOSC
Jeff Richards, CPCS

Carter Goble Associates
Stephen Carter, AICP – Project Manager
Alan Richardson – Lead Project Planner
June Binney – Legal Analyst
Robert Goble, AICP – Project Planner
Chris Monsma – Forecasting
Aaron Baggarly – Data Analysis
Kenneth McKellar – Operations Review
Dawn Catalano – Logistics
Cassandra Johnson – Report Preparation

STV Incorporated
David Ziskind, AIA – Principal-in-Charge
Charles Paradie, AIA – Project Manager
Kristine Gorman – Project Coordinator
Price Jepsen, AIA – Corrections Programmer
Donald Currie, AIA – Corrections Designer
Joel Davidson, AIA – Corrections Architect
Joseph Miele, RA – Corrections Architect
Greg Spears – Designer
Joyce Finnegan – Production
Carlos Almeida – Production

Pulitzer/Bogard & Associates
Curtiss Pulitzer, AIA – Project Planner
Cheryl Gallant, Planner
Pamela de Toledo, Planner

xi
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FINAL REPORT – DECEMBER 2011

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

xii
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FINAL REPORT – DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan
The Final Report

Executive Summary

Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
As a strategic capital plan, this Corrections Master Plan (CMP) has focused on the system as a whole in order to
identify the most cost-effective approach to investing capital dollars in the Massachusetts Correctional System. This
comprehensive approach provides a framework to meet the projected bedspace needs into 2020, address current
overcrowding, and create a better coordinated system that is both efficient and cost-effective.
Application of a new Standards–based capacity (CMP Baseline Capacity) indicates that the system housing 2009
populations has a current shortfall of approximately 9,800 bedspaces, before considering growth in populations.
Without any capital improvements or modifications to operating procedures and policies, the shortfall to house the
same populations is expected to climb to approximately 12,100 bedspaces by 2020. Based on the recommendation
to gradually eliminate federal inmates and to reassign civil commitments to treatment settings, this shortfall could be
reduced to approximately 10,250, requiring an estimated capital investment of $1.3 to $2.3 billion in today’s dollars
and an increase of estimated annual operating costs totaling as much as $120 million.
As state budgets continue to be challenged, it is clear that the needs of the current system are outpacing available
funding. In short, the existing system is not sustainable and requires, in addition to planned capital investment, the
investigation of every type of initiative - executive, legislative, judicial, and operational – to reduce recidivism, reduce
the population incarcerated in correctional facilities, and create a more proficient, and sustainable system in a climate
of ever shrinking resources.
To this end, the Corrections Master Plan includes projections of bedspace needs; considers upgrades to increase
capacity within existing facilities in order to reduce the need for new bedspaces; identifies barriers to a more efficient
system; proposes regional and multi-jurisdictional facilities to add flexibility and address needs more cost-effectively;
recommends shared resources and centralization of some support services; estimates the capital implications of the
plan; and prioritizes components to be funded in the initial capital plan. Moving forward, urgency is required to
consider new directions that emphasize a more cost effective correctional system.

-1STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary – DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

CURRENT SYSTEM
The Massachusetts Corrections System is made up of the 14 Sheriffs‟ Departments and the Department of
Correction (DOC) with very distinct responsibilities. In 2009, the Average Daily Population (ADP) housed in
Massachusetts correctional facilities totaled approximately 24,000. Of the total population, 5.6% were female.
Sheriff‟s Departments are responsible for confining pretrial defendants that were either a risk to the community or a
risk to flee prior to trial in addition to inmates with sentences of 30 months or less.
o

In 2009, the 13 Sheriff departments (excluding Nantucket) collectively housed a total population of
approximately 12,750 including approximately 1,000 federal and out-of-state inmates. Of the 12,750, only
572 were females (4.5%).

o

Approximately 35% of the population was pretrial detainees and 65% was serving an average sentence of
8.5 months.

The DOC oversees over 7 million square feet of buildings on 5,400 acres. The DOC has a range of responsibilities
that includes all inmates serving sentences over 30 months, a large percentage of the correctional system‟s female
pretrial detainees and inmates serving sentences less than 30 months, civilly committed populations (alcohol and
substance abuse, mentally ill and sexually dangerous persons) and some pretrial detainees that were previously
incarcerated in the DOC (so called Section 52A‟s). In addition, the DOC manages Bridgewater State Hospital, a
secure psychiatric hospital, and secures a portion of Lemuel Shattuck Hospital which provides medical services to
the statewide correctional system.
o

The total 2009 ADP in DOC facilities was approximately 11,300, including 628 civil commitments and 285
Section 52A detainees. Of the 11,300, a total of 772 were females (approximately 6.8%), of which 430 were
county sentenced and pretrial detainees.

o

In 2009, approximately 65% of the DOC population (excluding civil commitments) was classified as medium
security with 18% at maximum and 17% at minimum / pre-release.

With modest growth on average over the past 10 years, bedspace needs are a result of admissions outpacing
releases rather than a huge influx of additional new inmates. The cause of this outpacing is in large part due to longer
and more restrictive mandatory minimum sentences, current overcrowding, and the needs of special populations.
The challenges within the system include addressing current crowding, determining how facilities should be used to
accommodate reclassification, dealing with multiple populations that require separation, addressing special needs
populations currently comingled with the general population, upgrading older facilities, ensuring compliance with the
American with Disabilities Act and reducing recidivism with increased pre-release/re-entry programming.
As the Commonwealth seeks to more cost-effectively meet its obligations, assessing the most appropriate agencies
to house populations will be critical. Two specific groups of populations have been identified for reassignment outside
of the Corrections System as follows:
o

Civil Commitments: In most States, civilly committed individuals are more appropriately cared for by noncorrectional agencies such as the Departments of Public Health and/ or Mental Health. As these individuals
require treatment and are not being held on criminal charges, housing them in a correctional setting instead

-2STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

of a treatment environment is not the most cost-efficient or effective means to address their needs. This
population is projected in 2020 to require approximately 671 bedspaces.
o

Federal and Out-of-State Inmates: Over 1,000 federal and out-of-state inmates are currently being held in
Sheriff facilities. While this practice serves to supplement operating budgets, these inmates consume
bedspaces that could potentially be used for Massachusetts inmates, alleviating overcrowding, and reducing
the need for new bedspaces. This population has not been included in the 2020 projections.

Although dramatic operational changes are not assumed in the CMP, a willingness and cooperative approach by
stakeholders will be critical to achieve a more effective corrections system.

CMP GOALS
Through the strategic planning process that included data supplied by various stakeholders and discussions from the
numerous workshops held across the Commonwealth, four overarching goals emerged:
1. Alleviate crowding.
Overcrowding is an ongoing concern today that will only be exacerbated by anticipated growth of the
incarcerated population. A clear strategy on how the Commonwealth can begin to alleviate overcrowding in
a consistent manner across the Commonwealth must be a focus of the CMP.
2. Reduce recidivism.
Rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders back into the community is critical to public safety. Disrupting
the cycle of incarceration as well as the victimization of the Massachusetts residents can most effectively
be achieved by providing facilities and programs that provide support services and prepare inmates for a
new life in the community. Successful reintegration can decrease the projected incarcerated population.
3. Maximize existing resources.
With limited funding, identifying the best use of existing facilities and identifying what entity is best suited for
particular functions within the existing system is required to maximize and expand existing resources. This
includes expanding bedspace capacity and improving conditions in existing facilities.
4. Create a more integrated, efficient and cost-effective Corrections System.
With the transition to a single funding source, the creation of a more efficient and effective system is
possible and critical to enabling Massachusetts to address the challenges moving forward. By considering
the system as a whole and establishing more resource-sharing and less duplication, a more integrated,
flexible, and effective system with potential cost-savings can be realized.

2020 BEDSPACE PROJECTIONS
Bedspace projections are foundational to the CMP. As the CMP projections assume the continuation of current
policies and sentencing practices, these projections present a worst-case scenario that can be improved /reduced.
Bedspace Projection Methodology
Weekly counts were collated by DCAM to develop historical ADP‟s for Sheriff facilities, reassigning populations to
their appropriate jurisdiction (instead of where they are currently housed) and excluding federal inmates. DOC ADP‟s
-3STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

were based on the Quarterly Reports with Sheriff populations extracted. Due to limited historical data for the
originating counties of county-sentenced women held at DOC, civil commitments, sex offenders in core treatment
and 52A‟s, snapshots were used and extrapolated in order to create a consistent data set from which to base the
projections. Civil commitments and 52A‟s were projected separately. Utilizing this data, the following 7 methods were
implemented. The statistically valid models were determined and averaged to project ADP based on historic trends.









Historical Trend Increase
Actual Number Increase
Rate of Change of Incarceration Rate to
Population

Ratio to Population
Linear Regression
Exponential Smoothing ARIMA
Box-Jenkins ARIMA

2020 Bedspace Projection
Absent sentencing reforms, the 2009 ADP of approximately 24,000 (which includes over 1,000 federal and out-ofstate inmates in Sheriff facilities and 628 civil commitments in the DOC) is expected to grow to approximately 25,100
excluding federal and out-of-state inmates in Sheriff facilities.
In order to translate population (ADP) into bedspace needs, population projections were multiplied by factors to
address varying custody needs such as single bunking for disciplinary cases as well as peaking factors. As illustrated
in Table ES-1 and based on the current classification system, the 2020 population will require approx. 26,991 total
bedspaces or 27,662 including civil commitments. Although incarcerated population trends are flattening and in some
cases declining, this increase represents a significant addition to the Corrections System which is currently
experiencing overcrowding that must be addressed.
Table ES-1 breaks down populations assigned by jurisdiction and does not in all cases reflect where they are
currently housed (such as county women in DOC facilities). The exception is the 52A‟s, which are shown in the DOC
pretrial male counts in the table below. Although minimum custody may not be considered „secure beds‟, the
purpose of this distinction in the CMP is to separate those inmates eligible for pre-release and/or DOC step-down.

9,351
844
10,194
20,240
1,190
21,430

12,068
1,151
13,218
22,914
1,480
24,394

14,125
1,336
15,461
25309
1682
26,991

166
17
183

242
242

Medical / MH Acute
Care Bedspace Need

2,057
186
2,243
2,395
202
2,597

242
242

Total CMP Housing
w/ civil commitments

7,293
658
7,952
17,845
988
18,833

166
17
183

247
247

654
17
671

11,838
363
12,201

112
3
115

247
247

14,125
1,336
15,461
654 25,963
17 1,700
671 27,662

141
13
155
253
17
270

Sexually Dangerous

11,184
346
11,530

Mentally Ill

10,846
330
11,176

Substance Abuse

10,889
346
11,235

Civil Commitments
Total Civil
Commitments

353
353

Total CMP Housing
Sentenced + Pretrial

0
0

Sentenced and Pretrial

212
20
232
603
32
635

338
16
354

Total Secure Beds:

212
20
232
603
32
635

Total Sentenced

6,870
618
7,488
16,286
924
17,209

(DOC 16.5% ; Sheriffs
22%)

4,774
492
5,267
5,069
492
5,561

353

10,552
330
10,881

Pre-Release

391
12
404

Total Secure
Sentenced Beds

Medical
Sub-Acute Beds

391
12
404

353

295

9,416
306
9,722

295

Sex Offenders
in Treatment

Mental Health
Sub-Acute Beds

DOC
Men
Women
Subtotal
Sheriffs
Men
Women
Subtotal
Total Men
Total Women
Totals

Sentenced
Secure Beds

General
Population

Pretrial (52A's in DOC)

Table ES-1 Summary Bedspace Needs in 2020 based on Current Classification without Policy Changes

BEDSPACE CAPACITY REDEFINED
With the bedspace needs projected, an assessment of bedspace capacity in existing facilities is required in order to
determine the bedspace shortfall, the number, and type of new bedspaces that will be required.
-4STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

Design Capacity / Rated Capacity
In compliance with M.G.L. Chapter 799, Section 21, overcrowding has been reported as the difference between the
capacity reported at the time a facility was originally designed (Design Capacity) and the current number of inmates
occupying the same facility. However, the use of the Design Capacity as a basis for reporting overcrowding presents
a potentially misleading picture. Because design standards are modified over the years, Design Capacities of
facilities can vary quite dramatically, especially between very old facilities and recently constructed ones.
Although the DOC, which produces the Quarterly Reports, revises capacity when facilities have been significantly
renovated or circumstances warrant re-evaluation (Rated Capacity), the CMP process uncovered inconsistencies in
the capacity counts. In addition to building code requirements, the American Correctional Association (ACA) applies
minimum space recommendations as part of the certification process. While these recommendations are a factor in
certification, various remedies are allowed to enable an existing facility to attain or maintain certification even when
those space recommendations cannot be met. Design Capacity does not factor into these changing standards.
Utilizing Design/ Rated Capacity, in 2009 DOC facilities were operating at 142% of Design Capacity while Sheriff
facilities were collectively operating at 148% of Design Capacity.
A consistent definition of capacity is needed for planning purposes in order to determine the projected bedspace
shortfalls and more consistently quantify overcrowding throughout the entire system.
Corrections Master Plan (CMP) Baseline Capacity
By applying both relevant ACA standards and State Building Codes that impact housing capacity, a Corrections
Master Plan (CMP) Baseline Capacity was established for each correctional facility. The CMP Baseline Capacity
does not represent the number of inmates expected to be housed at a given facility today and is not intended to
replace Design / Rated Capacity. Rather, by applying a consistent set of criteria, the CMP Baseline Capacity
provides a means to compare both Sheriff and DOC facilities throughout the State and serves as a consistent starting
point in the planning for future bedspaces to alleviate crowding consistently.
The physical requirements that provide the basis for the housing component were identified and included in the
criteria that follow. The CMP Baseline Capacity criteria are outlined as follows:
1. A single cell that provides less than 35 unencumbered square feet can be counted as a capacity of one.
2. With the exception of an undersized single cell, all sleeping areas must provide 25 unencumbered
square feet per occupant or 50 unencumbered square feet for two inmates or 70 square feet total in a
double cell.
3. Every housing unit dayroom must provide a minimum of 35 square feet per occupant in the unit that will
occupy the dayroom at one time.
4. Per Massachusetts State Plumbing Code for Correctional facilities, the following plumbing fixtures are
required:
o

A shower must be provided on the basis of one for every eight inmates assigned to the unit.

o

For dormitory housing units, one toilet per 8 inmates and one wash basin for every 6 inmates
assigned to the housing unit must be provided. For pre-release/minimum units that are not
locked down, one wash basin for every 8 inmates is allowed.
-5-

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

Notably missing in these criteria is the support core. The ACA standards do not provide measurable physical
standards for these areas, although performance measures are recommended. Clearly, evaluation of the support
core will be required on an individual facility basis prior to increasing capacity. As there are very few cases where the
CMP Baseline Capacity exceeds Current Beds, support cores would not be stretched further and the CMP Baseline
Capacity would not override conditions previously reviewed by Code Officials or ACA certifications.
The application of these standards to existing facilities results in DOC facilities collectively operating at 152%
occupancy (as opposed to 142% of the Design Capacity) and the Sheriffs collectively operating at 136% occupancy
(as opposed to 148% occupancy to Design Capacity). Based on these standards, the DOC facilities are actually
more crowded than their Design Capacities indicate while the Sheriff facilities are collectively less crowded.
Potential Capacity
In order to maximize existing facilities and reduce the number of new bedspaces required, improvements were
identified for each facility in order to achieve a Potential Capacity. The Potential Capacity illustrates the extent that
standards-driven improvements to existing facilities could improve the capacity of the existing facilities in the system.
Although the feasibility for these improvements will require additional investigation on a facility basis, with the
implementation of these improvements the Sheriff‟s facilities on average would be operating at only 8% above the
Potential Capacity (as opposed to 36% over CMP Baseline Capacity or 48% over Design Capacity) while the DOC
facilities on average would be operating at 12% above the Potential Capacity (as opposed to 52% over CMP
Baseline Capacity and 42% over Design Capacity).
While 8% and 12% overcrowding of current (2009) population still represents a shortage, these improvements, if
feasible, can reduce substantially the need for new construction.

2020 BEDSPACE SHORTFALL
Bedspace projections for the Corrections System are estimated to total approximately 27,000 (26,991) by 2020,
excluding civil commitments (27,662 with civil commitments). As summarized in Table ES-2, the total combined DOC
and Sheriff Department 2020 bedspace shortfall without civil commitments is anticipated to range between 10,242
bedspaces using CMP Baseline Capacity and 5,154 bedspaces using Potential Capacity.
Table ES-2 Summary of Bedspace Needs in 2020 without Policy Changes
Sheriffs
DOC
Total
Target Bedspace 2020
15,461
11,530
26,991
Current Beds

Shortfall- Current Beds
CMP Baseline Capacity

Shortfall- CMP Baseline Capacity
Potential Capacity

14,963

11,968

26,931

(498)

438

(60)

9,347

7,402

16,749

(6,114)

(4,128)

(10,242)

11,775

10,062

21,837

(3,686)

(1,468)

(5,154)

2020 Bedspace Shortfall
(based on Potential Capacity Definition)
Design Capacity

Shortfall- Design Capacity

8,620

7,920

16,540

(6,841)

(3,610)

(10,451)

Source: Carter Goble Associates 2010; DOC includes 52A's; civil commitments excluded

-6STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

THE BASIS FOR ELIMINATING BARRIERS TO SYSTEM EFFICIENCY
Existing laws, regulations, and policies serve both as “drivers” of the incarcerated population as well as barriers to
more effective resource sharing. The specific legal barriers that constrain the ability of the Judiciary, Law
Enforcement, and Criminal Justice agencies to maximize public safety, increase efficiency, and respond to the
multiple and complex needs of the custody populations can be divided into broad areas:
1. Sentencing restrictions which require judges to assign mandatory minimum sentences to certain offenses.
2. Statutes and policies that limit effective reentry planning by restricting the “stepping down” or transitioning
out of higher to lower security levels, or which restrict access to minimum/prerelease/work release status.
3. Legal requirements that require the separation of certain populations.
4. Statutes and practices which allow for civil commitments of certain populations to be committed to the
Department of Correction for clinical evaluation and/or treatment.
5. Legal impediments to the ability of the Courts, the DOC or the Sheriffs to house and place inmates in Sheriff
or State facilities or programs deemed appropriate to meet the inmates‟ needs while protecting public safety.
6. Legal or regulatory impediments to the release of end-state inmates to community corrections.
7. Lack of statutes or practices which could reduce the numbers and lengths of stay of pretrial detainees.
8. Statutes and practices which result in an inefficient and outdated pre-arraignment process.
Sentencing reforms and pretrial release could have a major impact on bedspace needs and shortfalls, estimated at a
reduction of 600-1,400 bedspaces. Every effort should be made to reevaluate legislation and policies towards
maintaining public safety, promoting rehabilitation, and reducing the incarcerated population in Massachusetts.
Regions of the Commonwealth
In order to gain efficiencies, incarceration options should be considered on a state-wide system. Regionalization can
achieve efficiencies by eliminating duplicative services, creating program sizes that can operate more costeffectively, and creating flexibility in the system to handle fluctuations in the incarcerated population. To this end, the
CMP takes a regional approach towards addressing the needs of the Corrections System in 2020:
1. Region 1 - Northeast: Sheriffs - Essex ,Suffolk; DOC - Shattuck Hospital Unit, Boston Pre-Release Center
2. Region 2 – Central: Sheriffs - Middlesex, Norfolk, Worcester; DOC - Bay State Correctional Center, MCI
Cedar Junction, Souza Baranowski, MCI Concord, MCI Framingham, MCI Norfolk, MCI Shirley, NCCI, NCC,
SMCC, Pondville Correctional Center
3. Region 3 – Southeast: Sheriffs - Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Plymouth; DOC - Bridgewater State Hospital,
Massachusetts Alcohol & Substance Abuse Center, Massachusetts Treatment Center, MCI Plymouth, Old
Colony Correctional Center.
4. Region 4 – West: Sheriffs -Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire; DOC - no facilities
-7STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

The proposed regions in Figure ES-1 are based on geography to create potential multi-jurisdictional arrangements. A
three region approach, as illustrated in Figure 5.1-3 and discussed in detail in Chapter 5 was determined to be more
appropriate for women facilities.
Figure ES-1 Proposed Geographic Regions

ROLES FOR INCARCERATION
The CMP does not recommend altering the fundamental incarceration responsibilities of the DOC and Sheriff
departments but rather seeks to optimize current roles and create a more flexible and integrated system. Areas of
specific recommendation in broad categories of responsibility include:
1. Pre-Arraignment. Over time, pre-arraignment responsibilities should be transferred to existing Sheriff‟s
pretrial facilities where there is capacity or when expansion of existing facilities to provide regional lockup
capacity can be considered as part of renovations. The focus of the shift to professionally operated Sheriff
facilities will permit a greater use of pretrial intervention programs and better conditions for detainees.
2. Sheriff’s Offices. Sheriff Departments should remain responsible for pretrial detainees and sentenced
offenders. Section 52A detainees should be returned to Sheriff facilities. With their connections to
community resources, Sheriffs should take responsibility for DOC inmates eligible for step-down in the last
6-12 months of their sentence to promote reintegration into communities.
3. The DOC. The DOC should remain responsible for inmates with sentences greater than 30 months. DOC
should collaborate with Sheriffs to develop a Classification System to enable step-down into pre-release
facilities. With the development of sub-acute and chronic care medical and mental health facilities, DOC
should continue to play a critical role in the secure treatment of seriously ill inmates.
-8STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

4. Community Corrections. In an effort to effectively reduce reliance on incarceration and enhance public
safety the Governor has proposed legislation to centralize community supervision of adult defendants and in
a unified agency within the Executive Branch. This agency, the Department of Re-entry and Community
Supervision (DRCS), would be responsible for supervising adult defendants and offenders from the early
pretrial stages of the criminal process through re-entry to the community after incarceration. This model is
characterized by a comprehensive “continuum of care” and is followed by the majority of States.

THE STRATEGIC CAPITAL PLAN
The Corrections Master Plan (CMP) outlines the approach to meeting the CMP goals by examining different
populations within the Corrections System. Historically, male inmates housed in general population have comprised
the majority of the incarcerated population and existing facilities have been focused around addressing their needs.
Although special custody populations remain in the minority, the number of these inmates has been growing and
placing strains on the system. Because the needs of these special custody populations differ from the majority of
offenders, the Strategic Plan disaggregates these populations and examines their needs separately. In the
development of a capital plan, 10 overarching topics were organized into the following three broad groupings:
1. Special Custody Needs (Women, Medical Population, Mentally Ill Population, Pre-Release / Re-entry
Offenders, and Sex Offenders in Treatment)
2. General Custody Needs (Male Pretrial and Sentenced Inmates in Sheriff facilities and the DOC)
3. Additional State-wide Improvements: (Pre-arraignment Incarceration, Technology, Transportation, and
Accessibility)

SPECIAL CUSTODY POPULATIONS
The CMP addresses the needs of special custody populations first because these groups, while smaller in number,
drive the types of bedspaces that are required to make the correctional system more efficient and open opportunities
for a more effective use of existing facilities. Five special groupings were examined: Women, Medical Population,
Mentally Ill Population, Pre-Release / Re-entry Offenders, and Sex Offenders in Treatment.
Women Offenders
The management of female offenders presents unique challenges to correctional administrators. With the expansion
of the female inmate population during the 1980‟s and 1990‟s, the traditional “male-centric” system was stressed by
new demands. Four overarching characteristics of incarcerated women were identified and are outlined below:
1. Prevalence of mental disorders: Women inmates in Massachusetts exhibit consistently higher rates of
mental disorder than their male counterparts. The DOC reported that 67% of women held in 2007 were
actively on the mental health caseload and over 50% were receiving psychotropic medications.
2. Histories of Physical & Sexual Abuse: National surveys indicate that 57% of women entering correctional
facilities report histories of physical abuse (4 times the rate of men); 39 percent report histories of sexual
abuse (8 times that of men); and 37 percent report being victimized as children (2 .5 times that of men).
-9STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

3. Separation from Children: Incarcerated women experience psychological stress associated with
separation from children. An estimated 65 % of women entering correctional facilities have minor children,
and 64 % of the women lived with their children prior to incarceration.
4. Prevalence of Substance Abuse: DOC data from 2007 indicated that 86% of women reported histories of
substance abuse. An estimated 60% of women in correctional facilities meet the criteria for substance
abuse or dependence. Women entering prison are at higher risk than their male counterparts of
experiencing co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders.
As the incarcerated women population grew, some Sheriff departments could not provide the segregated facilities
and programs required for the relatively small number of women in each county. As a result, many county-sentenced
and pretrial women were sent to MCI Framingham where the combined populations could take advantage of special
programs (MGL Chapter 125, Section 16). The population has grown; outpacing MCI Framingham‟s capacity and
resulting in significant overcrowding.
Of the 1,322 (2009 ADP) incarcerated women, more than half are currently held in very crowded conditions at MCI
Framingham. In fact, only 47% of these women have DOC sentences or are legitimately the DOC‟s responsibility.
While the number of women given a custodial sentence by the Court is increasing (also nationally), their length of
confinement remains low. Additionally, many female inmates serve a large portion of their sentences as „time served”
awaiting trial, making the provision of the needed programs during pretrial detainment critical.
Long range, the CMP recommends the development of regional women‟s correctional centers to enable the costeffective delivery of programs and the more efficient use of facilities due to required segregation from men, while
keeping women as close as feasible to their sentencing communities. The long range plan includes:
o

Regional Women‟s Correctional Centers: The expansion of existing women‟s programs into Regional
Women‟s Correctional Centers to house sentenced and pretrial women: Suffolk HOC in the East Region;
MCI Framingham in the Central Region; and the Western MA Regional Women‟s Correctional Center in the
West Region. These regional centers could provide resources for adjacent Sheriff facilities housing women.

o

New pre-release facilities: To enable transition back into communities including DOC step-down inmates,
new pre-release facilities should be built or leased in local town centers in each county.

o

Total beds: 1,700 beds are estimated to be needed by 2020. With 1,100 CMP Baseline Capacity, 435-470
new secure and pre-release bedspaces would be required in addition to potential capacity improvements to
gain 98-136 beds in existing facilities; the range dependent on the classification system utilized.

As a first step, considerable progress has been made towards the expansion of the Western MA Regional Women’s
Center in Hampden County as a regional facility that will house women from western counties including Worcester.
This expansion will enable a reduction in crowding at MCI Framingham and afford the opportunity to provide more
consistent programming for women.

- 10 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

Medical Population
In the context of the CMP, the medical population refers to housing units required for sub-acute (long-term
ambulatory care) in addition to acute beds (generally short-term crisis care). Clinics and ambulatory care services
provided routinely to the general population require space but not necessarily bedspaces and are not included in this
discussion on bedspaces but will be evaluated in a separate Needs Assessment study.
Acute care beds are short-term crisis care, managed as temporary bedspaces. An acute care setting is similar to a
primary care community hospital with a range of surgical and post-operative services. Licensed physicians, nurses,
and other medical staff should be present on a 24-hour basis in acute care facilities. Inmate patients are expected to
return to the permanent housing upon recovery. Acute beds can include hospital beds as well as on-site infirmaries
although they typically handle acute care needs of a lesser magnitude than in a hospital setting and are frequently
not staffed with medical personnel on a 24-hour basis. Detoxification beds, on-site medical and mental health
observation, and medical isolation associated with infirmaries are also considered acute care beds. These acute care
bedspaces are currently provided in the Shattuck Hospital Correctional Unit, in on-site infirmaries and in local hospital
settings.
With the DOC managed care approach coupled with the availability of community-based beds in local hospitals
(preferably teaching hospitals), the current number of acute beds is expected to meet the needs by 2020.
Sub-acute care facilities are similar to assisted-living environments with limited availability of skilled nursing beds.
These bedspaces are for long term care provided to chronically ill, disabled, or elderly inmates requiring ongoing
assistance with activities of daily living (ADL‟s). These inmates classified as sub-acute or long-term patients are
typically not suitable to be housed in the general population due to their vulnerability and the disproportionate
consumption of staff resources they require. Without sub-acute beds in the system, these chronically ill inmates
frequently occupy infirmary beds. This trend hampers the ability to provide appropriate acute care services in the
infirmaries and results in a lack of transition bedspaces for inmates returning from acute care.
Due to an aging incarcerated population, the greatest need for medical beds in the Commonwealth is for sub-acute
care, long-term patients. Based on benchmarks and national averages, acute and sub-acute bedspace needs were
estimated and are summarized in Table ES-4 below. With a projected inmate population of approximately 27,000
Sheriff and DOC inmates in 2020, on any given day, approximately 900 inmates would be expected to have medical
needs serious enough to be provided a separate living environment.
Table ES-4 Estimate of 2020 Acute and Long-Term Medical Beds by Current Jurisdictions
Sub-Acute
Medical
Acute Care
Total Medical
Care Beds
excluding civil commitments
Beds Needed
Beds Needed
Needed
Sheriffs
DOC
Combined Total Medical Bedspaces

155
115
270

232
404
635

387
519
905

Source: National Benchmarks applied to DOC and County projections
Note: Acute care needs based on 1.0% of the projected DOC and Sheriff inmate population.
DOC sub-acute needs based on 3.5% of population; Sheriffs 1.5% of population.

With limited, appropriately staffed, sub-acute bedspace capacity in existing facilities, the CMP recommends, long
range, the addition of new sub-acute care bedspaces in three separate, purpose-built facilities to provide treatments,
adequate staffing and necessary programs in a more efficient, thorough and cost-effective manner.
- 11 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

Mental Health Population
Due to the de-funding of community mental health agencies and the closure of many community-based residential
mental health treatment centers throughout the USA, correctional facilities have become the mental hospitals of the
past. The Commonwealth is no exception. In the majority of cases, inmates with severe enough mental health
problems to require special treatment (more than a regime of psychotropic medicine) often also have a medical
condition that requires constant observation and treatment. For this reason, the CMP recommends co-locating subacute medical and mental health beds within the same complex.
For the purposes of this study, acute care or short-term crisis care includes stabilization units and mental health
observation and are included in the medical acute bedspace need calculation previously covered.
Sub-acute care includes longer term treatment beds for inmates requiring separate housing from the general
population for special programming and/or treatment focused on mental illness.
The CMP approach has been to estimate need based on input from administrators and to benchmark against
California‟s comprehensive assessment. In total, 635 bedspaces are proposed to better manage the chronic and
long-term needs of the mentally ill population, excluding civil commitments, as illustrated in Table ES-5.
Table ES-5 Estimated Number of Mental Health Bedspaces in 2020

Acute Care
Beds

Sub-Acute
Care Beds
(incl. in Medical
Needed
Acute)

Mental Health
excluding civil commitments
Sheriffs
DOC
Combined Total Mental Health Bedspaces

-

232
404
635

Source: National Benchmarks
Note:Sub-acute needs based on 3.5% of DOC population; 1.5% of Sheriffs population

A scientifically based approach to surveying the population with trained health professionals is recommended prior to
final programming to address the needs of this segment of the inmate population.
Although surveys completed by the DOC and Sheriffs estimate an existing combined 528 sub-acute mental health
bedspaces, it is unlikely that survey respondents categorize bedspaces the same way and that there is a consistent
level of treatment associated with these bedspaces. Additionally, the majority of these bedspaces (320) are in
Bridgewater State Hospital (BSH) which is not well-suited for mentally ill inmates. Long term, the CMP recommends
repurposing BSH and the construction of new purpose-built facilities.
Combining 635 medical and 635 mental health beds, 1,270 bedspaces is the universe of need by 2020 (1,500 if civil
commitments remain), 3 new specialized facilities of 400-500 bedspaces each are proposed. These facilities should
be located in close proximity to trained medical and mental health professionals; e.g. university teaching hospitals
and medical schools. Constructing these specialized facilities on a regional basis will free up general custody
bedspaces while addressing the increasing demand for specialized treatments cost-effectively.

- 12 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

Pre-Release / Reentry Population
In the CMP, pre-release/reentry is defined as the provision of separate bedspaces for inmates that qualify to be
assigned to a purpose-built environment with programs in preparation of their release. The programs and services
provided through pre-release and reentry are essential to a successful re-integration into the community, are the
foundation for changing the current rate of re-offending and are a cornerstone to improving public safety.
While other types of bedspaces require a higher level of capital investment, pre-release bedspaces are typically less
costly than higher custody or specialized bedspaces and can provide the greatest return on investment with prerelease/reentry programs. The classification of inmates is foundational to determining the number of pre-release / reentry bedspaces needed. Although the Sheriffs and DOC classification systems are each based on different criteria,
the critical focus in the CMP is to begin to develop an integrated system that allows for greater participation in prerelease / re-entry preparation and DOC step-down into Sheriff facilities.
Sheriffs‟ Classification: The number of pre-release/reentry inmates in Sheriff facilities is difficult to determine due to
the lack of a uniform classification system. Based upon input from Sheriff‟s Departments, 22% of the projected
sentenced bedspaces was used to estimate the number of 2020 pre-release/reentry bedspaces.
DOC Classification: In 2005, the DOC completed a re-classification study that found that the point system at that
time had a scoring and over-ride process that did not meet industry standards, resulting in higher security levels than
was necessary. Based on this study, an Objective Classification System was implemented that resulted in a slight
shift to lesser security levels that constitute the current classification system. However, DOC only classifies inmates
eligible for work release as pre-release.
Current DOC Classification System: Based on a snapshot of the population on December 28, 2009, the current
classification system resulted in 3.1% of sentenced men and 4.8% of the sentenced women being classified for prerelease. Applying these percentages, the DOC‟s 2020 pre-release bedspace need is estimated at 354 beds (338 for
men and 16 for women). Utilizing the current classification system, Table ES-6 illustrates the combined projected
number of DOC and Sheriff pre-release/reentry beds for 2020, totaling 2,597.
Table ES-6 Pre-Release/Reentry Bedspace Need for 2020 with Current Classification System
Pre-Release

Males

Sheriffs
DOC
Combined Total Pre-Release Beds

2,057
338
2,395

Females

Total Beds
by 2020

186
17
202

2,243
354
2,597

Projected DOC beds utilizing current classification breakdown - Pre-release @ 3.1% for men; 4.8%
for women

Although the current classification system represents a shift, the potential for greater gains is presented in the „target‟
or proposed classification system noted below.
Proposed DOC Classification System: Based on national standards, 16.5% of the DOC‟s ADP should be assigned
to pre-release status, eliminating inmates that are within the release eligibility date but are such serious offenders
(e.g., sex offenders) that they do not qualify for a community-based assignment.
This 16.5% was applied to the 2020 DOC projected sentenced bedspace need to arrive at an estimated need of
1,853 pre-release/reentry bedspaces (1,797 men and 57 women), more than 4 times greater than the current system.
Table ES-7 applies the proposed DOC classification system.
- 13 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

Table ES-7 Pre-Release/Reentry Bedspace Need for 2020 with Proposed Classification System
Pre-Release

Males

Sheriffs
DOC
Combined Total Pre-Release Beds

2,057
1,797
3,854

Females

Total Beds
by 2020

186
57
243

2,243
1,854
4,097

Source: Carter Goble Lee; Percentages of 22% of county-sentenced bedspace needs;
16.5% applied to DOC sentenced bedspace needs.

As the above tables illustrate, the classification system has tremendous impact on the pre-release bedspace
projection, with the target bedspace needs differing by 1,459 bedspaces for men, 1,500 total bedspaces. This
becomes critical in determining the type and quantity of bedspaces to build in a phased plan. With a classification
system that results in more inmates eligible for pre-release, meeting the need of the projected population can be
achieved by building fewer „secure‟ general custody beds which are typically more expensive to build and operate.
A key CMP goal is to institute a state-wide comprehensive step-down program to transfer eligible DOC inmates in the
last 6-12 months of their sentence into the Sheriff facilities of their originating counties. This will enable inmates to
make connections to community resources while still incarcerated, supporting a successful reintegration into the
community, and ultimately a lower rate of recidivism. Although the total bedspaces needed in the system does not
change, the impact of shifting some DOC population to the Sheriffs would result in fewer DOC general custody
bedspaces and more Sheriff pre-release bedspaces.
While recommending DOC step-down into Sheriff facilities, the CMP also recommends the continued use of existing
DOC and Sheriff pre-release facilities in addition to new bedspaces in either renovated structures, new structures or
leased facilities. New bedspaces should be provided in regional facilities ranging in size from 50 to 200 beds. Further,
since these spaces would ideally be located near town centers with employment and educational opportunities as
well as community resources, it may be possible and desirable to consider leasing facilities.
In order to assess the order of magnitude of pre-release bedspace shortfalls on a regional basis, pre-release
bedspace capacity in DOC and Sheriff facilities have been combined and bedspace shortfalls summarized by the
regions in Tables ES-8 utilizing the current and proposed classification system.
Table ES-8 Men Pre-Release Beds by Region – Phase 1
Jurisdiction

Northeast Region
Central Region
Southeast Region
West Region
TOTALS

2020 Pre-release Bedspace
Current Classification
Need
Repurposed
787
0
649
0
467
458
491
0
2,395

458

2020 Pre-release Bedspace
Proposed Classification

Shortfall
(147)
45
(9)
(290)
(447)

Need
Repurposed
1,281
0
1,140
0
703
458
730
0
3,854

458

Shortfall
(641)
(446)
(246)
(529)
(1,861)

Pre-release Bedspaces
Phase 1

Pre-release Bedspace Goals
Existing Repurposed
640
0
694
0
0
458
201
0
1,535

458

New
410
206
142
424

Total
1,050
900
600
625

Existing
640
694
458
201

New
200
100
200
100

Total
840
794
658
301

1,182

3,175

1,993

600

2,593

Assuming a gradual shift from the current classification system towards the proposed classification system and the
successful implementation of system-wide DOC step-down, the male pre-release bedspace need will approach 3,854
bedspaces with an estimated shortfall of 1,861 bedspaces after potential capacity improvements are implemented
and a surplus of beds 458 general custody bedspaces in the Southeast Region are shown as repurposed. Yet if the
current classification continues, the shortfall is estimated at less than 500 bedspaces.
In addition to the impact of classification reform, potential sentencing reform may result in an increase of inmates
eligible for pre-release and may also include a more widespread use of electronic monitoring devices which could
- 14 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

decrease bedspace need. As the ultimate impact of these initiatives is not clear, approximately 3,200 pre-release
bedspaces was set as a reasonable goal, less than the proposed classification system would suggest but slightly
more than the current classification would require. This would require the addition of almost 1,200 new bedspaces.
As part of the Initial Capital Plan, the CMP recommends the addition of 600 pre-release bedspaces, spread out
across regions. As these new pre-release bedspaces will not address the total needs of every Sheriff and the DOC,
the addition of new beds should be considered for use by multiple jurisdictions. Governance, formal agreements, and
eligibility criteria must be negotiated with DOC, the Sheriffs and Probation to ensure the success of this strategy.
Sex Offender Treatment Population
In the context of the CMP, the Sex Offender Treatment Population includes those inmates in DOC‟s 30 month Core
Treatment Phase. These offenders fall into two categories: 1) criminally charged and participating in treatment and 2)
„sexually dangerous persons‟ civilly committed after completion of a criminal sentence for sexual offence that are
considered a continued risk. These two categories currently total 627 inmates, of which 47% are civilly committed.
The CMP recommends the transfer of the „sexually dangerous persons‟ currently housed in DOC‟s Massachusetts
Treatment Center (MTC) to DMH, assuming it would result in a more cost-effective delivery of treatment with
potential federal reimbursement otherwise not available in DOC‟s custody. With a CMP Baseline Capacity of 417 and
a Potential Capacity of 557, MTC has limited capacity for growth and is in poor condition. The bedspace projections
for the sex offender treatment population are summarized below. Absent the successful reallocation of the civilly
committed population to DMH, the bedspace need increases to approximately 599 special treatment bedspaces.
Table ES-9 Special Treatment Bedspace Needs for Sex Offender Population

Sex Offenders - criminal sentences
Sexually Dangerous - civil commitments
Combined Total Beds

2009 ADP

2020
Bedspace
Need

332
295
627

353
247
599

Source: Carter Goble Lee; June 2009
Criminal offenders 2008 ADP includes 1/3 of NCCI's ADP

Depending on whether the civil commitments are transferred, the bedspace need and approach could vary. Three
possible approaches to housing and treating this population include:
1. Reuse existing facilities: Continue to use the existing MTC (with potential capacity improvements) for
specialized sex offender programming until demand exceeds its Potential Capacity of 557 bedspaces.
2. Build into new facilities: Provide the projected bedspaces of 353 sex offenders (and 247 civilly committed
if required) into the proposed new DOC medical/mental health facilities, increase their proposed size.
3. Combined repurposing and new facilities/ expansions: Repurpose and expand Bridgewater State
Hospital (258 Potential Capacity beds) site for criminally sentenced sexual offenders (and civil commitments
if required), allowing the repurposing of MTC as a medium custody facility for general population inmates.
As there is capacity to house this population at MTC in the short term, the addition of new bedspaces for this
population is not a priority. However, reassignment of civil commitments to DMH should be advanced.
- 15 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

Summary of Capital Requirements for Special Custody Offenders
Tables ES-10 and ES-11 below summarize the bedspace needs for special populations, applying current and
proposed classification systems. These bedspace needs will total 5,742 to 7,192 with shortfalls ranging from 2,152 to
3,602 bedspaces.
Table ES-10 Special Population Bedspace Needs for 2020 - Current Classification
Special Needs Populations excluding civil commitments
Women
Pretrial
Sentenced Secure Beds (Med & MH beds incl. below)
Pre-release ( Incl. in Pre-release count below)
Medical / Mental Health
Sub-acute Medical - Men
Sub-acute Medical -Women
Sub-acute Mental Health - Men
Sub-acute Mental Health-Women
Pre-Release/Reentry
Men
Women
Sex Offenders
Criminal Sentenced
TOTAL

Total
Bedspaces
Needed for 2020

1,416
492
924
202
1,271
603
32
603
32
2,597
2,395
202
353
353
5,636

Repurposed
Existing
Potential
Capacity
Bedspaces

Existing
Potential
Capacity
Bedspaces

New
Bedspaces
Needed

Totals

924

187

321

1,432

924

187

321

1,432

-

-

1,271

1,271

0

0

635

635

0

0

635

635

1,607
1,535
72
353
353
2,884

520
458
62
-

561
447
114
-

707

2,152

2,687
2,439
248
353
353
5,742

Notes: Assumes all new sub-acute medical & mental health beds - exist. beds have not been deducted from general capacity counts; Repurposed beds: Women pre-lease @
Barnstable, Berkshire and Bristol; SE Region male general custody surplus repurposed as pre-release; MTC for Sex Offenders

Table ES-11 Special Population Bedspace Needs for 2020 - Proposed Classification
Special Needs Populations excluding civil commitments

Total
Bedspaces
Needed for 2020

Women
Pretrial
Sentenced Secure Beds ( Med & MH beds incl. below)
Pre-release ( Incl. in Pre-release count below)

1,376
492
883
242
1,271
603
32
603
32
4,096
3,854
242
353
353
7,096

Medical / Mental Health
Sub-acute Medical - Men
Sub-acute Medical -Women
Sub-acute Mental Health - Men
Sub-acute Mental Health-Women
Pre-Release/Reentry
Men
Women
Sex Offenders
Criminal Sentenced
TOTAL

Existing
Potential
Capacity
Bedspaces

Repurposed
Existing
Potential
Capacity
Bedspaces

New
Bedspaces
Needed

924

187

319

1,430

924

187

319

1,430

-

-

1,271

1,271

Totals

0

0

635

635

0

0

635

635

1,607
1,535
72
353
353
2,884

520
458
62
-

2,012
1,861
151
-

707

3,602

4,139
3,854
285
353
353
7,192

Notes: Assumes all new sub-acute medical & mental health beds - exist. beds have not been deducted from general capacity counts; Repurposed beds: Women prelease @ Barnstable, Berkshire and Bristol; SE Region male general custody surplus repurposed as pre-release; MTC for Sex Offenders

- 16 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

Civilly Committed Population
Over 600 individuals that have no criminal charges are currently incarcerated in DOC facilities. Inclusion of this
population within the Corrections System is unique to Massachusetts, particularly alcohol and substance abuse
cases. This seems to result from a lack of community-based treatment programs. In fact, due to the limited
community-based programs, it has been reported that some civil commitments have criminal holds placed on them to
ensure they receive treatment in the DOC. As the community-based programs have been expanded, the number of
Section 35 (Alcohol and Substance Abuse) detainees within the DOC has been decreasing. In fact, DOC has been
able to reduce the population at MASAC due to available beds at the Men‟s Addiction Treatment Center, a nonprofit
treatment center in Brockton. Keeping civil commits in the DOC‟s MASAC facility will reduce the DOC‟s ability to
provide treatment to their inmate populations who have no other alternative for treatment.
These populations include mentally ill, sexually dangerous persons and alcohol / substance abuse populations. Table
ES-12 summarizes the additional bedspace needs projected for these populations.
Table ES-12 Projected Civil Commitments – Mentally Ill & Alcohol / Substance Abuse
2020
Projected
Civil Commitments
2009 ADP
Bedspace
Need
Mentally Ill
227
242
Alcohol / Substance Abuse (Section 35's)
92
183
Sexually Dangerous Persons
295
247
Notes: All civil commits are male exceppt 17 female Section 35's

The CMP recommends that these civil commitments, when possible, be treated in community-based programs so
that reimbursement from Medicaid, Medicare, or private insurance can be pursued and are therefore not included in
the future bedspace needs. The estimated 671 projected bedspaces for all civil commitments constitute an additional
46% of DOC‟s estimated bedspace shortfall.
Given the limited number of existing bedspaces and the overwhelming need for these sub-acute bedspaces for
mentally ill inmates, utilizing bedspaces for civilly committed individuals is simply not affordable or cost-effective.
Understanding that security levels must be assessed, the CMP recommends that the responsibility for some or all of
the civilly committed mentally ill be transferred to the care of the Department of Mental Health (DMH) if possible. In
fact, DMH currently cares for female mentally ill civil commitments. Should this not be possible, the mentally ill civil
commits should be added to the sub-acute mental health bedspace need, increasing from 635 to approximately 877.
Understanding the overlapping and duplicate services provided by DMH, DPH, and DOC is needed to determine the
most cost-effective means of addressing the needs of these populations in the Commonwealth.

GENERAL CUSTODY INCARCERATION
General custody, in the CMP, includes the general population of sentenced male inmates and pretrial male detainees
(excluding civil commitments, pre-release, sex offender treatment population, and inmates requiring sub-acute medical
or mental health care). These general custody bedspaces are referred to in the CMP as secure bedspaces as they
are typically located within the secure perimeter (Minimum custody is included as the critical distinction is eligibility for
pre-release / DOC step-down to Sheriff facilities). General custody embraces all levels of security classification from
minimum to maximum, including inmates that must be segregated due to behavior and disciplinary reasons.
- 17 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

Depending on the classification system applied, male general custody bedspaces will represent between 74% and
79% of the system‟s total bedspaces of almost 27,000 in 2020, the difference a result of more pre-release beds in the
proposed classification system.
As Tables ES-13 and ES-14 illustrate, classification has a tremendous impact on need and by extension on shortfalls.
The resulting need for male general custody in 2020 is projected to range from 19,895 bedspaces to 21,355 bedspaces,
a difference of almost 1,500 (1,460) secure bedspaces. As more inmates are classified for pre-release and DOC stepdown, the need for „secure‟ bedspaces reduces, also reducing capital and operating costs.
ES-13 Total Male General Custody Bedspace Need
Current Classification

ES-14 Total Male General Custody Bedspace Need
Proposed Classification

2020
Bedspaces

Type Bedspace
Total Bedspace Need for Pretrial and Sentenced
Populations

Total Bedspace Need for Pretrial and Sentenced
Populations
26,991

(exlcudes Acute Care & Civil Commitments)

Male General Custody Secure Beds

26,991

(exlcudes Acute Care & Civil Commitments)

Special Needs Bedspace Needs

(Includes
Women, Sub-acute Medical & Mental Health, Pre-release, and Sex
Offenders)

2020
Bedspaces

Type Bedspace

Special Needs Bedspace Needs

(Includes
Women, Sub-acute Medical & Mental Health, Pre-release, and Sex
Offenders)

-5,636

Male General Custody Secure Beds

(excludes Pre-release)

(excludes Pre-release)

21,355

-7,096
19,895

Based on CMP Baseline Capacity criteria, there is an estimated general custody bedspaces shortfall ranging from
5,700 to 7,100 bedspaces, depending on classification. With the implementation of Potential Capacity improvements,
almost 4,500 bedspaces can be realized within existing facilities, significantly reducing the need for new bedspaces.
Tables ES-15 and ES-16 summarize bedspace needs, capacities, and shortfalls regionally, and by custody level.
These tables combine general custody bedspaces by region, assuming surplus beds in one county would be used to
offset a shortfall in another county in the same region. Although this may not be feasible in all locations, the estimate
serves as a starting point in determining where new bedspaces are needed. With the repurposing of bedspaces and
the continuation of the current classification system, 1,200 new bedspaces in the DOC and 2,200 new bedspaces for
Sheriffs combined would be required.
ES-15 Male General Custody Bedspaces – Current Classification
General Custody Types

DOC
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
DOC TOTALS
Sheriffs
Northeast Region
Central Region
Southeast Region*
West Region
Sheriff TOTALS
TOTAL

Total
Bedspaces
Needed for
2020

Existing
Potential
Capacity
Bedspaces

Repurposed
Existing
Potential
Capacity
Bedspaces

1,912
6,299
1,205

2,869
4,319
1,036

(957)
957

9,416

8,224

3,801
3,241
2,405
2,491
11,939
21,355

2,671
2,452
2,405
2,222
9,750
17,974

New
Bedspaces

Totals

1,023
169

1,912
6,299
1,205

0

1,192

9,416

14
14
14

1,130
789
0
255
2,174
3,366

3,801
3,241
2,405
2,491
11,939
21,355

Excludes special population beds at MASAC, MTC, Bridgewater, Shattuck; Repurposed beds are exist. women beds in Franklin &
Hampshire, Maximum to Medium; Exist. Maximum beds may be less due to MCI Cedar Junction conversion; * 458 general custody
beds to be repurposed for Pre-release

- 18 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

As shown in Table ES-16, with the implementation of the proposed classification system, potential capacity
improvements and repurposing, the DOC could have a surplus of general custody bedspaces although the expansion
of support and program spaces may still be required. However, should civil commitments remain in DOC‟s custody,
an additional 400 bedspaces would be needed (BSH would continue to house mentally ill civil commits).
ES-16 Male General Custody Bedspaces – Proposed Classification
General Custody Types

DOC
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
DOC TOTALS
Sheriffs
Northeast Region
Central Region
Southeast Region*
West Region
Sheriff TOTALS
TOTAL

Total
Bedspaces
Needed for
2020

Existing
Potential
Capacity
Bedspaces

Repurposed
Existing
Potential
Capacity
Bedspaces

New
Bedspaces

Totals

1,574
5,062
1,321

2,869
4,319
1,036

(1,295)
1,295
552

-552
-267

1,574
5,062
1,321

7,957

8,224

552

(267)

7,957

3,801
3,241
2,405
2,491
11,939
19,895

2,671
2,452
2,405
2,222
9,750
17,974

14
14
566

1,130
789
0
255
2,174
2,174

3,801
3,241
2,405
2,491
11,939
19,895

Excludes special population beds at MASAC, MTC, Bridgewater, Shattuck;Repurposed beds are exist. women beds in Franklin &
Hampshire, 1,295 Maximum to Medium, 348 Medium to Minimum; Exist. Maximum beds may be less due to MCI Cedar Junction
conversion; * 458 SE general custody beds to be repurposed for Pre-release

With potential capacity improvements, in either classification system, maximum custody bedspaces would be in
excess and should be repurposed to medium custody. Additionally, approximately 500 of the DOC‟s bedspaces
(Potential Capacity) are in modular wood facilities which are maintained beyond their life spans. Most of these (324)
are medium custody and may need to be replaced, depending upon success with reclassification.
Moving forward, it is clear that the implementation towards the proposed classification system and potential capacity
improvements can dramatically reduce the need for new general custody bedspaces. New multi-jurisdictional general
custody facilities should be developed regionally to provide for the future needs. DOC‟s overflow could also be
handled in these multi-jurisdictional facilities as these improvements and reclassifications are being implemented.

SUMMARY OF NEW BEDSPACES BY REGION
With funding limitations, the Commonwealth cannot sustain the status quo. In order to meet the challenges in 2020
and beyond, a more integrated, cost-efficient and effective Corrections System that requires collaboration of
stakeholders is absolutely essential. The CMP recommends a regional approach to addressing the total shortfall
ranging from 5,500 to 6,000 bedspaces. Benefits of this approach include:






Adds flexibility to the system as populations expand or contract
Provides critical size of populations for cost-effective programs and services
More efficiency in building fewer, larger facilities and the ability to address the needs of multiple jurisdictions
in the short term with limited funding
Maintains proximity to communities
By consolidating new shared bedspaces, the system can begin to address improving conditions in existing
facilities and expanding access to programs.
- 19 -

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

As this approach is a departure from current practices, many factors must be addressed to ensure its success.
Therefore, the CMP recommends that working committees including representatives from EOPSS, DOC, Sheriffs,
DCAM and ANF be convened to collaborate on the following issues to this end:







Governance of multi-jurisdictional facilities
Jurisdictional agreements between Sheriffs
Inmate classification to implement DOC
step-down and multi-jurisdictional facilities
Medical and Mental Health Care issues

Pre-release / re-entry programs and strategy
to reduce recidivism
Operational Costs
Transportation / Technology upgrades




Tables ES-17 and ES-18 summarize the new bedspace needs by region for DOC and Sheriffs combined for 2020
using the current and proposed classification systems. The bedspace needs shown in these tables assume all CMP
Baseline Capacity beds remain as currently purposed. However, in the case of women beds, efficiencies and costeffective programming may be better realized by housing larger number of women in fewer regional centers. This
could result in building more new women beds in one location and repurposing existing women beds in another
location for use by men.
ES-17 New DOC & Sheriff Bedspaces Needed by Region – Current Classification
Region

Northeast Region
Central Region
Southeast Region
West Region
Totals

CMP
Baseline
Capacity
2,645
7,886
3,640
2,578
16,749

Potential
Capacity
3,521
10,879
4,688
2,749
21,837

New Male
General
Custody
1,130
1,773
208
255
3,366

New Women Beds
Pre-release
40
62
12
114

General
227

New
Medical
/Mental
Health
750
520

94
321

1,270

New Male
Pre-release
Beds

Total New
Beds

Total Beds
(Potential
Capacity)

147
*
9
290
447

1,544
2,584
750
639
5,517

5,065
13,463
5,438
3,388
27,354

New Male
Pre-release
Beds

Total New
Beds

Total Beds
(Potential
Capacity)

641
446
246
529
1,861

2,047
2,065
785
877
5,775

5,568
12,944
5,473
3,626
27,612

Note: * denotes Male Pre-release bedspace surplus of 45 beds in Central Region

ES-18 New DOC & Sheriff Bedspaces Needed by Region – Proposed Classification
Region

Northeast Region
Central Region
Southeast Region
West Region
Totals

CMP
Baseline
Capacity
2,645
7,886
3,640
2,578
16,749

Potential
Capacity
3,521
10,879
4,688
2,749
21,837

New Male
General
Custody
1,130
785
4
255
2,174

New Women Beds
Pre-release
50
85
16
151

General
226

New
Medical
/Mental
Health
750
520

93
319

1,270

ADDITIONAL STATE-WIDE IMPROVEMENTS
Beyond the addition of bedspaces, other critical overarching support functions must also be improved if the system is
to become more efficient through greater integration and cooperation.
Pre-Arraignment Incarceration
Unlike many other States, in the Commonwealth the responsibility for the pre-arraignment process currently rests
with municipalities and the State Police. Many of the existing 300 local lockups are understaffed and without
- 20 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

adequate facilities (such as for alcohol and/or drug withdrawal, suicide watch, meals preparation, visiting, day rooms,
or showers) for holding arrestees beyond a very short timeframe. Sheriff facilities are better equipped to handle the
myriad of issues surrounding arrestees and can implement comprehensive intervention programs that divert as
many as possible from pretrial incarceration through the establishment and funding of both local pretrial intervention and
probation and parole supervisory programs. Therefore, the overarching CMP recommendation is that as efforts are
made to achieve a more integrated system, Sheriff facilities‟ intake and lockup capabilities should be assessed in the
context of regional needs. Where regional lockup capacity in Sheriff facilities are available or planned as part of a
capital project (renovation or new), local lock-ups should be closed and the entire pre-arraignment and arraignment
process should be assigned to the Sheriffs.
Technology
Without a more integrated approach to information management, capital dollars invested to improve existing facilities
and create new correctional facilities will not result in a more integrated, effective and cost-efficient system. While the
correctional system regularly invests in technology, a more coordinated approach, taking into consideration the
impact on all correctional agencies as well as the plans of other criminal justice agencies is required.
A comprehensive planning effort in 2006 resulted in a vision for expanding MaSSNet into an integrated system that
would serve all criminal justice agencies to provide seamless interaction and information sharing of critical, complete,
timely, and secure information to criminal justice personnel and decision makers, accessible at any time, from any
device, in any location across the Commonwealth. Expansion of the system should also provide sharable information
with non-criminal justice agencies with statutory authority to support public health, public safety and homeland security,
human services, and other government and public services.
The comprehensive technology plan that is underway at the state level will be the foundational platform for the
correctional component. Specific technological opportunities identified during the CMP to augment the operation of
facilities and services that should be considered as a part of MaSSNet are summarized below:








Fingerprint-based records available to correctional, parole, and community corrections to assure the
identification and monitoring of offenders and support standardized booking and processing;
Telemedicine applications that would expedite diagnosis, reduce expenditures for medical personnel,
and eliminate expensive transportation of inmates to medical facilities;
Electronic medical records that would provide access to agencies throughout the process and result
in cost savings associated with the transfer of confidential medical information between stakeholders;
Video arraignment from county jails and local courthouses that would significantly expedite the prearraignment process and reduce the time of incarceration;
Video visitation that would provide greater opportunities for more frequent contact between families
and offenders while reducing the spatial needs at correctional facilities;
Inmate kiosks that would provide inmates with a single source for managing their inmate account,
maintaining their inmate plan, choosing visitation times, and other uses that would reduce staff‟s time.
Transportation database and scheduling capability expanded for Sheriffs

Coordination with the ongoing work is required to include these available technologies as a part of an integrated
management system. Consolidating technology funding to better coordinate and evaluate capital requests towards
the development of an integrated regional model is recommended.

- 21 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

Inmate Transportation
The movement of inmates is a major annual expenditure for both the DOC and Sheriffs and normally includes a variety
of destinations such as jails and prison transfers, courts, medical centers, interstate transfers and special purpose trips.
Although the DOC maintains a Central Transport Unit (CTU) that schedules trips and maintains a database of use, the
cost per inmate trip is very high at $391 per trip (compared to the Washington DOC„s $50.78 per trip cost). Without
improved efficiencies, the infrastructure supporting this system is not cost-effective.
While a comprehensive centralized statewide system may not be the answer, a regional service model at minimum
should be considered. However, because data is not consistently tracked by all Sheriffs, it is difficult to determine what
options for regionalization or consolidation are truly feasible. The addition of a shared web-based transportation
database that includes scheduling and tracking of use is required and recommended in order provide the data for further
analysis. Additionally, if this software was available to all Sheriffs and the scheduling information shared, it is likely that
trip sharing would naturally develop between Sheriffs and the DOC.
The need for a more integrated transportation system will be even greater with the implementation of the CMP‟s
regional approach. Long term, full implementation of the following inter-related recommendations will require a
cooperative effort by the DOC and Sheriffs:
1. Develop Uniform Dispatching, Data Reporting, Accounting, and Transport Guidelines – A joint effort
by all participating agencies to develop a uniform inmate transport dispatch, data reporting, and accounting
system that could be tailored to be suitable to any agency‟s local needs and conditions while also providing
generic monthly statistical reporting to enable monitoring of system‟s performance.
2. Pursue Development of a Fixed Route Scheduled DOC System – The DOC should assess the feasibility of
implementing a fixed-route scheduled system within the CTU using much larger capacity vehicles.
3. Sheriffs‟ Deliver All New Sentenced Inmates to Regional Centers – The DOC and Sheriffs should consider
counties transporting newly DOC-sentenced inmates to designated regional DOC facilities for temporary
transfer holding, making transfer to the designated DOC reception/intake center more efficient.
4. Implement a Central Vehicle Purchase Program – The improved service should also be supported by a
central vehicle purchase system made available to the DOC and all Sheriffs to take advantage of lower cost
purchase prices via the state‟s greater purchasing power from bulk procurements.
5. Review Classification and Change of Custody Issues – A more uniform classification system can clarify
change of custody issues that will be required in a more integrated transportation system.
Accessibility
Accessibility will be a critical component in the implementation of the Corrections Master Plan. There are two
distinctly separate sets of accessibility laws with which state-owned facilities must comply.


The Rules and Regulations of the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (MAAB), part of the MA
State Building Code 780 CMR. As these requirements are part of the building code, design and construction
professionals are accustomed to incorporating these requirements into facilities.

- 22 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1



Executive Summary

The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) is federal civil rights law. Title II of the ADA describes the
obligations of public entities. Whereas the focus of the MAAB is on physical requirements, the ADA expands
this focus to policies and procedures and access to programs, and services.

Program access is a term unique to the application of Title II. The obligation of “program access” is that the public
entity operate each program, service, and activity so that each of them, “when viewed in its entirety, is readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.”
Although existing facilities may need to be physically altered to make programs, services and activities accessible to
individuals with disabilities, the ADA does not necessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. For example, if a public entity operates two pre-ADA (1991)
facilities that have the same programs, services, activities, and security classification, but only one has architecturally
accessible cells, Title II program access requirements would permit an inmate with disabilities to be housed in the
facility with the accessible cells, in lieu of requiring architectural modifications at the other facility.
Alternative methods of making programs, services, and activities accessible in existing buildings include redesign of
equipment; reassignment of services to accessible buildings or accessible spaces within buildings; assignment of
aides to beneficiaries; making programs available electronically; and delivery of services at alternate accessible sites,
among others.
The required minimum number of accessible cells is 3% (with a minimum of one) in alterations and new construction,
dispersed across all classification levels. With each new CMP project, addition, or alteration, the number and
distribution of accessible cells should be evaluated on a facility basis. When alterations occur, the new number of
accessible cells should be provided within the altered area or at least within the same facility, unless technically
infeasible, in which case, accessible cells can be provided elsewhere in the system. Other elements of correctional
facilities must also comply with accessibility standards in order to provide access to a correctional facility‟s programs,
services, and activities for inmates and visitors with disabilities.
As the Commonwealth begins to address the bedspace needs into 2020, it is imperative that accessibility compliance
be ‟front and center‟ in the evaluation of alterations to existing facilities as well as the construction of new facilities.
Consistent with the CMP‟s regional approach, providing program access throughout the system will require strategic
evaluations of the system as a whole. As the DOC has multiple facilities of the same custody level, program
accessibility can be met by targeting specific facilities in each custody level. A regional analysis of Sheriff facilities is
needed to determine how the Commonwealth can most effectively ensure program accessibility for all inmates. The
CMP recommends the system-wide development or updating of Transition Plans for all DOC and Sheriff facilities.
Sustainability
With anticipated population and current overcrowding, it is clear that the expansion of facilities to address bedspace
needs and program requirements will be required. With this expansion, the reduction of energy consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with Executive Order 484 is mandated. The 2020 targets outlined in EO484
include a 40% reduction of greenhouse emissions, a 35% reduction in energy consumption of State-owned and
leased facilities, procurement of 30% of electricity consumption from renewable sources, a 15% reduction of potable
water, the use of bio-heat products, and the requirement that all new buildings and major renovations meet the Mass.
LEED Plus green building standard established by the Massachusetts Sustainable Design Roundtable. Beyond 2020,
further reductions are targeted.

- 23 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

In addition to EO484, the CMP incorporates several additional core sustainable strategies that seek to optimize use
of the existing facilities, minimize the amount of new construction, incorporate energy efficiency improvements, and
create operational efficiencies whenever possible.
These sustainable strategies can be summarized as follows:


Improve existing structures to gain bedspace capacity (Potential Capacity improvements)
By implementing potential capacity improvements in existing facilities, greater efficiency is possible. This
strategy allows for the reduction of new bedspaces in new facilities, shifting the focus to creating greater
energy efficiency in existing buildings.



Develop Multi-jurisdictional Facilities
As bedspace demands fluctuate among jurisdictions, the addition of Multi-jurisdictional facilities can add
flexibility into the system, reducing the likelihood that bedspaces would be underutilized. This strategy
allows for a more even distribution of populations as bedspace needs vary and enables a more efficient
means of addressing bedspace needs.



Emphasis on Pre-release Facilities
With the implementation of a classification system that enables more inmates to participate in pre-release
and re-entry programming, the CMP seeks to better prepare inmates for re-entry, ultimately reducing
recidivism, and decreasing the need for more bedspaces. Also on a daily basis, pre-release / re-entry
inmates spend a greater amount of their time outside of the facilities, resulting in less energy consumption
at these facilities.



Consolidation of special populations
By consolidating special populations, the system can provide programs more effectively and efficiently.



Expanded use of technology to improve operational efficiency
The CMP recommends the expanded use of technology to improve operations and reduce inmate
transportation. Some of these measures are tele-medicine, tele-conferencing and electronic records.



Transportation
The CMP recommends the implementation of web-based transportation scheduling to encourage trip
sharing between the DOC and the Sheriffs in order to reduce trips. Additionally, consideration should be
given to increasing the size of the vehicles used and instituting some consistent route schedules.



Facility upgrades prioritization
Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emission reductions will be critical criteria in the prioritization of
capital funds for facility improvements.

In support of these sustainable strategies and target reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse emissions,
DCAM‟s Energy Team will continue to implement major energy projects.

- 24 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

SUMMARY OF THE 2020 BEDSPACE NEEDS AND COST
New Bedspaces and Potential Capacity Improvements
Significant capital investment and annual operating cost increases will be required to address the 2020 projected
bedspace needs. However, implementing classification towards a less risk-averse system that requires less costly
bedspaces and implementing potential capacity improvements to gain as many as 4,200 additional bedspaces in
existing facilities can have a dramatic impact on these costs.
In fact, total project costs can be reduced from a range of $1.29 billion – $2.31 billion associated with the current
classification system without potential capacity improvements to a range of $792 million to $1.43 billion with the
proposed classification system and potential capacity improvements. Similarly, potential annual operating cost
increases of as much as $120 million can be reduced significantly.
Table ES-19 summarizes these 4 scenarios, including breakdowns between special populations and general custody
bedspaces and illustrating the possible cost ranges.
Table ES-19 2020 Capital Cost Estimate Scenarios–Capacity & Classification System
Total Project Cost (TPC)

Bedspace Type

Housing

Facility

CMP Capacity with Current Classification System
Special Populations
$386,841,092
$716,169,672
General Custody
$900,848,004 $1,592,466,909
Total - Special & General
$1,287,689,096 $2,308,636,581
CMP Capacity with Proposed Classification System
Special Populations
$480,803,980
$875,758,405
General Custody
$716,543,251 $1,261,416,363
Total - Special & General
$1,197,347,232 $2,137,174,768
Potential Capacity with Current Classification System
Special Populations
$350,243,201
$654,008,124
General Custody
$451,034,937
$804,157,049
Total - Special & General
$801,278,138 $1,458,165,173
Potential Capacity with Proposed Classification System
Special Populations
$446,110,688
$817,245,712
General Custody
$307,996,687
$552,400,020
Total - Special & General
$754,107,374 $1,369,645,731



CMP Baseline Capacity with the Current Classification System:
Total Project Cost: $1.3 billion to $2.3 billion dollars in 2009 dollars, without escalation
This scenario is the most costly because the current classification system requires a greater number of higher
custody bedspaces and does not assume the addition of potential capacity bedspaces in existing facilities.



CMP Baseline Capacity with the Proposed Classification System: Table ES-20
Total Project Cost: $1.2 billion to $2.14 billion dollars in 2009 dollars, without escalation

- 25 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

This scenario illustrates the financial benefit of a more aggressive reclassification system even without the
benefit of potential capacity bedspaces as the proposed classification system assumes a greater number of DOC
inmates in less costly minimum and pre-release bedspaces.


Potential Capacity with the Current Classification System:
Total Project Cost: $801.3 million and $1.5 billion in 2009 dollars, without escalation
Although the current classification system requires a greater number of higher custody bedspaces, this scenario
assumes that targeted capacity improvements can be implemented in existing facilities to add as many as 4,200
bedspaces, resulting in significant capital cost savings.



Potential Capacity with the Proposed Classification System:
Total Project Cost: $754 million and $1.4 billion in 2009 dollars, without escalation
This scenario represents the greatest opportunity for savings, illustrating the financial benefit of a more
aggressive reclassification system in addition to the benefit of potential capacity bedspaces. Should legislative
reforms reduce mandatory minimum sentences, additional savings could be realized in capital costs and annual
operating costs, in addition to reducing recidivism and the incarcerated population.

Existing Facility Improvements
Facility deferred maintenance and facility upgrade requests beyond the scope of routine operating budgets are
submitted annually to DCAM‟s CAMIS database. Currently, the estimated cost for improvements requested by
Sheriffs and the DOC and/or identified by DCAM Facilities Maintenance and Management Division‟s staff or their
consultants totals approximately $538 million. This figure cannot be considered all inclusive for the following reasons:





Many identified projects have not been assigned costs or have assigned costs dated back as far as 2000.
Requests may not include preventive maintenance or code compliance repairs, including accessibility.
These requests are frequently limited to repairs with costs less than $1 million and do not include upgrades
or higher cost renovations that would be considered minor capital projects.
Sheriffs who are new to the state‟s system have just begun in 2010 to enter their requests into the CAMIS
database.

An annual budget for facilities maintenance and upgrades at 2% - 4% of replacement value is not uncommon.
Although not all Sheriff facilities have been assigned replacement values in the CAMIS system (Bristol, Plymouth,
Hampden‟s Chicopee site, Dukes and Norfolk are not valued), the total replacement cost in CAMIS for those facilities
included comes to $4.1 billion dollars. At 2% - 4%, annual maintenance budgets would range between $82 million to
$164 million. However, these budgets do not account for the backlog of deferred maintenance from previous cycles.
As a result of difficult budget cycles, varying priorities, and competency of maintenance staff, deferred maintenance
costs grow and are not always consistently or thoroughly documented. Although facility maintenance requests are
submitted annually to DCAM, these requests may not be comprehensive, may not include all necessary preventive
maintenance and code compliance repairs, and/or be prioritized in a manner consistent with the larger goals of the
Corrections System.
For these reasons, the $538 million can be viewed as a minimum amount needed for existing condition
improvements.
- 26 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

PHASE 1 CAPITAL PLAN
With identified capital investments to meet the 2020 needs for the Corrections System estimated in the range of
$2 billion, in addition to a potential increase in annual operating costs of as much as $120 million, it should be clear
that the current system is unsustainable. Consolidation, reorganization, and collaboration by stakeholders will be
critical to enable the Commonwealth to meet its obligation moving forward.
Based on the authorization of $550M (Chapter 304 of the Acts of 2008), the CMP proposes a first phase capital plan.
The plan includes a strategic increase in specialized and general custody bedspaces, potential capacity
improvements to gain bedspaces in existing facilities, and an allocation for prioritized upgrades to existing facilities.
Phase 1 – New Bedspaces
New bedspaces recommended in Phase 1 focus on special populations and are summarized in Table ES-20. By
providing these specialized bedspaces, general custody bedspaces can be vacated to begin to alleviate crowding.
The bed counts in the table below serve as a starting point. The actual new beds to be provided in each specific
facility must consider site capacity, operational and staffing efficiencies and a more detailed analysis that is typically
part of the required building study process.
Table ES-20 Recommended Phase 1 New Bedspaces
CMP Phase 1 - Recommended New Beds
Region
Northeast Region
Eastern MA Women's Correctional*
Women Pre-release Beds
Male Pre-release
Central Region
MCI Framingham*
New Medical / Mental Health Facility
Male Pre-release - location TBD
Women Pre-release Beds
Multi-jurisdictional General Custody-TBD
Southeast Region
Male Pre-release -locations TBD
West Region
Western MA Women's Correctional
Male Pre-release -Hampshire
Totals

Women Beds
Pre-release

General
225
225

0
Study

Medical /
MH

500

Male Beds
Pre-release
200

200
100

Total

General

500

500
100
500
0

0

100
100

0

200
200
100

325

500

100
600

500

425
225
0
200
1,100
0
500
100
0
500
200
200
200
100
100
1,925

Notes: Beds counts are preliminary and must be assessed in Building Studies; All new women bedspaces may not be feasible at Suffolk HOC site. Additonal
study of MCI Framingham recommended.

Women Bedspaces – approximately 325 new bedspaces: $40 million to $72 million
The CMP recommends expanding three existing successful programs into regional women‟s centers by adding
approximately 325 new bedspaces. Since programs exist and the new bedspaces will be provided in addition to the
existing facilities, it is expected that the capital costs would tend toward the lower end of the range.




Western MA Regional Women‟s Correctional Center in Chicopee
Eastern MA Regional Women‟s Correctional Center at the Suffolk House of Corrections
Central MA Regional Women‟s Correctional Center at MCI Framingham

Additional study of MCI Framingham and Suffolk HOC is required to determine the site capacity and feasibility of
adding new bedspaces to reduce crowding and address needs for the Central and East Regions.
- 27 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

Sub-acute Medical and Mental Health Bedspaces - approximately 500 new bedspaces: $106 to $200 million
Assuming a maximum size of 500 beds, one new dual function medical and mental health facility is recommended for
Phase 1. Prior to launching a new building study, a more in-depth Needs Assessment Study is required to assess
acuity levels. Since the bulk of the DOC inmate population are in facilities in the Central and Northeast Regions and
proximity to medical schools for staff is important, the CMP recommends that priority be given to locating the new
medical facility in or near the Central and Northeast Regions.
Male Pre-Release/Reentry Bedspaces - approximately 600 new bedspaces: $40 million to $68 million
Pre-release/reentry facilities housing 600 new bedspaces should contain or have access to support space for a range
of release preparation activities that are the foundation for changing the current rate of re-offending. The facilities
should be varied to provide an inmate with a progression of environments in preparation for independent living and
should be near community centers to provide access to jobs, permanent housing, and public transportation.
The greatest return on investment will likely be derived from the pre-release/reentry programs. The distribution of
new bedspaces is recommended as follows:






Northeast Region – 200 beds
Central Region – 100 beds

Southeast Region – 200 beds
West Region – 100 beds

General Custody Bedspaces - approx. 500 new bedspaces: $62 million to $110 million
In order to build flexibility into the system, the CMP recommends building a new multi-jurisdictional general custody
facility in the Central Region. Although governance issues must be addressed, the 500 multi-jurisdictional bedspaces
proposed for the Central Region would reduce crowding in several counties by providing space to transfer various
populations and create a „relief valve‟ for the system as a whole. By doing so, additional space could be made available in
selected counties to accommodate additional male pretrial inmates closer to local courts, including 52A‟s. Siting and
design of this multi-jurisdictional facility should consider options that would provide a portion of the bedspaces to address
the need for a Southern Middlesex Jail presence (due to the decommissioning of the Cambridge Jail).
Estimated capital costs for the Phase 1 Bedspaces are summarized in Table ES-21.
Table ES-21 Capital Cost Estimate – Phase 1 New Bedspaces
New Bedspace Type

Total New
Beds

Special Custody Populations
Women - Secure
Subacute Medical & MH
Men - Pre-release
Subtotal Special Populations
Men- General Custody - Medium
Total New Beds

325
500
600
1,425
500
1,925

New Square Feet
Housing

74,750
162,500
111,000
348,250
112,500
460,750

Total Project Cost (TPC)

Facility

149,500
325,000
231,000
705,500
225,000
930,500

Housing

$40,327,625
$105,625,000
$39,682,500
$185,635,125
$62,156,250
$247,791,375

Facility

$71,909,500
$200,687,500
$67,567,500
$340,164,500
$109,687,500
$449,852,000

The 1,925 Phase 1 New Bedspaces have estimated capital costs in the range of $248 million to $450 million. For
purposes of the CMP, approx. $350 million is estimated to be needed for the Phase 1 new bedspaces.

- 28 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

Phase 1 – Potential Capacity Improvements and Existing Conditions Upgrades
The remaining $200 million in the authorization of $550M (from Chapter 304 of the Acts of 2008) is recommended for
potential capacity improvements, existing conditions upgrades and contingency for potential scope revisions
associated with Phase 1 New Beds.
Potential capacity improvements are estimated to range between $40 million and $85 million, depending on the
degree of reclassification implemented. As previously outlined, approximately $538 million of identified existing
conditions deferred maintenance requests are listed in DCAM‟s CAMIS database. Based on these figures, it is clear
that careful assessment and prioritization is needed to determine the best use of the $200 million allocation.

PHASE 1 INITIAL STEPS
The CMP has focused on the capital expenditure necessary to meet the projected 2020 bedspace needs in the
Commonwealth. Although a capital plan, creating a more efficient and cost-effective system requires initiatives far
beyond „brick and mortar‟ projects. The CMP is based on the assumption that a series of steps will be undertaken
toward advancing policy and operational changes to produce a more effective, efficient, flexible and integrated
correctional system in the Commonwealth. To this end, the following steps are proposed as an integral part of the
CMP.
1. Based on the CMP criteria, reassess current Design and Rated Capacities to enable the creation of a more
consistent and compliant inventory from which to evaluate overcrowding more effectively.
2. Begin discussions on implementing a shared classification system which is less risk-averse to enable a
more aggressive step-downing of DOC inmates into pre-release facilities.
3. Begin stakeholder discussions on implementing a multi-jurisdictional governance structure for new multijurisdictional facilities and for governance input on the expansion of existing women‟s facilities into regional
centers.
4. Appoint a CMP Implementation Committee to monitor progress in achieving the recommendations of the
Corrections Master Plan and provide a progress report at critical intervals, focusing on operational and
legislative initiatives.
5. In coordination with the MaSSNet initiative, develop a comprehensive program that expands technology to
improve pre-arraignment, video conferencing, tele-medicine, transportation, classification, records-keeping
and other services including better coordination between criminal justice agencies.
6. Implement a shared transportation database for scheduling and tracking trips to enable a possible reduction
of trips by adjacent facilities and lay the foundation for a future comprehensive transportation system.
7. Investigate a centralized system for purchasing of vehicles and other common items to gain cost savings for
all Sheriffs and the DOC.
8. Implement a Needs Assessment Study that identifies the acuity levels and medical and mental health care
delivery options for the Corrections System.
9. Begin discussions focused on re-assigning civilly committed persons to non-correctional agencies.
10. Begin operating budget realignment to enable the removal of Federal inmates from Sheriff facilities.
- 29 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Executive Summary

11. Implement legislative and policy reforms such as sentencing reform, classification changes, pre-trial
diversion, compassionate release, and incarceration alternatives that could reduce the need for bedspaces.
Essentially, a Strategic Master Plan defines a direction for the future, based on the goals and criteria defined today.
Any plan must be constantly monitored and periodically updated to reflect ever evolving conditions and policies that
will alter priorities. The CMP proposes means to improve existing conditions, but does not reflect an absolute solution
to the complex needs of the correctional system. Ongoing involvement of all stakeholders is required to implement
the direction proposed and to continually improve and inform the process to create a more integrated, efficient and
cost-effective Corrections System in 2020 and beyond.

- 30 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Executive Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan
The Final Report

CMP Summary

CMP Summary


Mandate from Governor was to look at it as a single system – finding efficiencies, better cost effectiveness
and improvements to services



Process involved national consultant team – STV and Carter Goble Lee – led a process of workshops with
Sheriffs and DOC to identify major issues and opportunities, site visits to all facilities, group presentations to
EOPSS, Sheriff‟s Association and DOC (as well as ANF).



Population projections applied to new standards-based capacity indicates a bedspace shortfall of over
10,000 beds by 2020, ranging in capital cost from $1.3 to $2.3 billion, not including escalation or requested
repairs to existing facilities estimated at $1billion – clearly not sustainable, exceeding the $550 million
available through the C.304 bond bill. Plus annual increase in operating estimated at as much as $120
million.



Requires strategic capital planning in addition to careful consideration of legislative initiatives and policy
changes to stem the current trend



Major recommended strategies include:
o

Implement potential capacity improvements to gain as much as 4,500 bedspaces in existing
facilities, reducing new bedspace need to under 5,800

o

Provide new general custody bedspaces in regional and/or multi-jurisdictional facilities to provide
more flexibility and enable the construction of fewer buildings to address the needs of multiple
jurisdictions more cost-effectively.

o

Implement more aggressive step-down of DOC inmates into new Sheriff-run pre-release facilities to
reduce recidivism, house eligible inmates in less costly, lower custody bedspaces and freeing up
general custody bedspaces.

- 31 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

CMP Summary – DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

CMP Summary



o

Introduce sub-acute care medical and mental health bedspaces in regional facilities to more
effectively provide treatment and promote efficiencies in existing facilities currently struggling with
these specialized needs.

o

Address women inmate needs and overcrowding at MCI Framingham by consolidating populations
for cost-effective programming with capital investment in 3 existing women facilities to create
regional centers: MCI Framingham, Suffolk HOC, Western MA Women‟s Center in Chicopee.

o

Encourage implementation of regionalized and/or centralized support services including more
extensive use of technology (video-conferencing, tele-medicine, inmate records, etc), shared
transportation database and scheduling software, and centralized vehicle purchasing.

o

Additional sentencing reform needed to reduce length of sentences, address obstacles to
programming access, etc. building on gains made in the most recent crime bill.

o

Implementation of a less risk-averse classification system shared by Sheriffs and DOC to support
transfer of inmates into pre-release and multi-jurisdictional facilities.

o

Investigate the reassignment of civil commitments from DOC‟s custody to non-correctional
agencies

Initial Capital Plan includes:
o New bedspaces: 1,925 at approx. $350 million
1. 600 pre-release bedspaces
2. 500 sub-acute Medical and Mental Health bedspaces in a specialized facility
3. 500 general custody bedspaces in a multi-jurisdictional facility
4. 325 women bedspaces in expansions to existing facilities
o

Existing facility improvements: $200 million
1. 4,200- 4,500 bedspaces from Potential capacity improvements
2. Upgrades, repairs and contingencies



Initiated Studies:
o Pre-release facilities – Northeast Region: Essex County including intake expansion; West Region Hampshire County
o Women Facilities - East Region – Suffolk HOC Study; West Region - Western MA Women‟s
Center Expansion in Chicopee



Scoping for other new studies:
o Medical and Mental Health facility study (needs assessment)
o Multi-jurisdictional general custody facility (waiting for new Middlesex Sheriff‟s involvement)
o Master Plan for Framingham to better determine best approach for the Women‟s Eastern region
needs.



Several ongoing repairs projects in various stages of study, design and construction.

32
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

CMP Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

CMP Summary

33
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

CMP Summary - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan
The Final Report

Chapter 1
Clarification of Incarceration
Needs

Chapter 1 Clarification of Incarceration Needs
Chapter 1 Clarification of Needs lays the framework for the basis of the Strategic Plan with a focus on the generation
of 2020 population projections and bedspace needs and the redefinition of bedspace capacity of existing facilities.

CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Massachusetts Corrections system includes 14 Sheriff departments and the Department of Corrections who
have distinct and different responsibilities.
Sheriff departments are responsible for the incarceration of inmates with sentences imposed by the Court system of
30 months or less in addition to confining defendants that are either a risk to the community or a risk to flee prior to
trial (currently, approximately 35% of total sheriffs‟ beds). Today 65% of the Sheriffs‟ detained population is serving
an average sentence of 8.5 months.
The DOC is responsible for inmates committed to sentences greater than 30 months. However, due to lack of
capacity at some Sheriff facilities in the past, the DOC now houses some populations that are technically the
responsibility of the Sheriffs who could be better and more efficiently served in Sheriffs‟ facilities. These populations
include a large portion of females awaiting trial, female inmates sentenced to county sentences as well as some male
pre-trial detainees with previous DOC convictions (so called Section 52A‟s)1. The DOC is strained further by the
additional responsibilities of housing and treating civilly committed populations (Mentally Ill, Substance Abuse and
Sexually Dangerous Persons) as well as providing forensic evaluations for pretrial detainees at Bridgewater State
Hospital.
While Sheriffs focus on the immediate stabilization (medical and detox) of pretrial detainees and the pre-release and
re-entry programming to integrate inmates back into their communities, the DOC focus is on the longer term
rehabilitation (and medical needs) associated with inmates serving longer sentences for more serious crimes.
Addressing the varying needs associated with these different populations while seeking opportunities to create a
more integrated and cost-effective Corrections System in Massachusetts is the challenge of this Strategic Plan.
1

M.G.L Chapter 276, Section 52 A provides for the transfer of pretrial detainees who have been previously incarcerated for a felony to the DOC

- 34 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1

CURRENT POPULATION
Growth in the Department of Corrections population has largely been the result of the legislative imposition of
mandatory minimum sentences that result in inmates remaining in the system for longer periods of time.
Over the past 10 years, the DOC population has fluctuated dramatically. From 1997 to 2007, the population actually
decreased by 4.2%. However, this trend included a drop of 17% between 1997 and 2004 and a steady increase
since. In 2007, the DOC inmate population grew by 3.7 %, outpacing neighboring states and tripling the national
average. In fact, Massachusetts‟ sentenced prison population had faster growth than the nation as a whole. During
the last 5 years prior to 2007, Massachusetts‟ sentenced population grew an average of 3.2 % while the nationwide
state prison population grew an average of 1.7% per year. In 2008 and 2009, however, there was a slight decline.
In 2009, the Average Daily Population (ADP) housed in Massachusetts Correctional facilities totaled approximately
24,000. Of the total population, 5.6% were female.
o

The total 2009 ADP in DOC facilities was approximately 11,300, including 628 civil commitments and 285
Section 52A detainees. Of the 11,300, a total of 772 were females (approximately 6.8%). Included in this
772 ADP were 430 female county sentenced and pretrial detainees.

o

In 2009, the thirteen Sheriff departments (not including Nantucket) collectively had a total population of
approximately 12,750 including approximately 1,000 federal and out-of-state. Of the 12,750, only 572 were
females (4.5%). Approximately 33% of the population is pretrial detainees.

The DOC has made recent shifts in its classification approach towards assigning inmates to the lowest appropriate
custody level. In 2009, approximately 65% of the population (excluding civil commitments) was classified as medium
security with 18% at maximum and 17% at minimum / pre-release.
The challenge within the DOC involves addressing current overcrowding, determining how facilities and bedspaces
should be used to accommodate reclassification, dealing with multiple populations that require separation and
addressing special needs populations currently comingled with the general population. Likewise, challenges in the
Sheriff facilities include overcrowding, the separation of pretrial and sentenced populations, a greater focus on
reducing recidivism with increased pre-release/re-entry programming, and addressing the special needs populations.

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS IMPACTING INCARCERATION / POPULATION PROJECTIONS
During the course of this study, alternative means of managing offenders that must remain under a close form of
community control have been discussed with representatives of various components of the criminal justice system.
Many of these alternatives hold significant promise in the Commonwealth and should be carefully vetted for future
consideration. However, the purpose of this plan was to identify the capital requirements of a system that has the
potential to become far more integrated and responsive to the changing needs of incarceration including an
emphasis on re-entry programming to reduce recidivism and on cost-effective strategies to deliver these services.
Although the projections of the future needs for incarceration have been based more upon a continuation of recent
historical trends than upon dramatic interventionist measures requiring legislative and policy changes (discussed in
Chapter 3), an overarching recommendation is that the Commonwealth exercise all possible haste to implement
legislative and policy changes to be better aligned with the Commonwealth‟s priorities and objectives.

- 35 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1

As a comprehensive plan for future expenditures, the projections were based upon a clearly established set of assumptions
about the factors that will drive growth in Sheriff Departments and DOC inmate populations. These “drivers” are
demonstrated and then discussed as opportunities for a more cost effective use of limited resources.
Incarceration Assumptions: The following set of assumptions was developed to guide the projection of future
bedspace requirements in the system. Population projections have been allocated according to these assumptions.
1. The historical decline in the reported rate of violent crimes in Massachusetts will continue and will
average less than 450/100,000 general population. Aggravated assaults will remain the highest
percentage (65%) of the total reported violent crimes.
2. Property crime, while significantly lower than the national average, will continue to represent an annual
average rate of less than 2,400/100,000 population compared to a national rate of 3,335/100,000.
3. Arrest rates will continue at less than 2,400/100,000 while the national rate remains at approximately
4,800/100,000. This benchmark has significant implications for counties as pretrial population is the
exclusive responsibility of local government.
4.

All pretrial offenders regardless of gender or offence will be assigned to the Sheriffs. Pretrial offenders
(women and Section 52A‟s) held by the DOC for whatever reason will be returned to the Sheriff
facilities located in or near the committing county (or into regional facilities for women) within a
reasonable timeframe.

5. Sheriffs will continue to incarcerate inmates with sentences of 30 months or less in addition to pretrial
offenders.
6. Within a reasonable timeframe, all federal inmates will be removed from Sheriff facilities in order to
address overcrowding issues. This population has not been projected for Sheriff facilities. This
represents a departure from current practices and will have an impact on the revenues supplementing
current operating budgets.
7. The two factors that have most impacted the DOC census in recent years have been the number of
new admissions with a sentence of less than five years (67%) and the accumulation of inmates with a
life sentence (18% of the ADP). The less than five year sentenced inmates are largely drug-related
offenders, while all of the inmates sentenced to life are violent offenders. These two categories will
continue at the same percentage in the DOC system. Drug offenders will continue to represent 40% of
the new commitments.
8. The median age of a DOC inmate will continue to be 37 years, or older. With the high percentage of
inmates sentenced to life (18% of ADP) due to the mandatory minimum sentencing practices imposed
by the judiciary, the requirements for long-term medical and mental health care will rise significantly.
9. The DOC will continue to implement a classification system that emphasizes a greater use of minimum
custody. Over time, this trend will redefine the use of existing facilities and define the construction and
staffing levels for future facilities.

- 36 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1

System Recommendations: The financial lines of responsibility between the Sheriffs and the DOC in
Massachusetts are different from 45 of the other state correctional systems. Historically, Sheriffs were funded from
county coffers while the DOC was funded by the State. With the passage of the Acts of 2009 Chapter 61, the State
Legislature now has control over funding for both the Sheriff and DOC corrections.
With the need for an investment in new and upgraded correctional facilities that far exceeds available funding, the
traditional separation of responsibilities that has existed for decades is no longer sustainable. The CMP has become
a vehicle for open discussion of the most cost effective options in order to achieve a more integrated system. Several
broad recommendations arising from this CMP have driven the consideration of options however, these
recommendations have not been assumed in the bedspace projections. They can be summarized as follows:
1. Through a coordinated effort involving the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of Commonwealth
government, all laws and policies that impact the ability to achieve a more integrated DOC and Sheriff
Departments correctional system should be reviewed with specific recommendations offered regarding the
elimination of barriers to a more efficient correctional system.
2. Through the initiative of the Judiciary and supported by the Legislative and Executive branches of
government, the continued use of mandatory minimum sentences should be reviewed with an aim to
returning to an acceptable form of indeterminate sentencing structure.
3. Efforts should be made to examine the feasibility and benefits of removing civilly committed inmates in the
DOC and reassigning them to the appropriate non-correctional agency for care and accommodation.
4. In order to support an integrated “investment-in-corrections” plan for a more efficient and coordinated stateof-the-art corrections system, an appropriate organizational structure that includes EOPSS, the DOC and
Sheriffs for specific facilities „governance as well as long range planning should be explored. Issues to be
considered include the approach to care and custody, jurisdictional issues, potential opportunities for bulk
purchasing, transportation scheduling, technology upgrades and other operational budget issues.
If significant intervention in correctional services does not occur, the ability to reduce recidivism and control the rising
cost of incarceration will not be possible. By tradition, the criminal justice system is based on a “stove-pipe” approach
to service delivery where each component of the system is first focused on their legislated, assigned, or assumed
responsibility with the result tending towards fragmentation and inefficiency. The unique governance structure in the
Commonwealth permits, and encourages, the elimination of barriers and, therefore, represents the framework for
improving public safety and responsibility and the avoidance of duplicative expenditures.

BEDSPACE PROJECTION METHODOLOGY
Foundational to the development of the Strategic Plan is the forecast of bedspace needs for each Sheriff Department
and the DOC, based on the assumptions previously outlined and by using each of the methods defined below.
Weekly counts were collated by DCAM to develop historical ADP‟s for Sheriff facilities, reassigning populations to
their appropriate jurisdiction (instead of where they are currently housed) and excluding federal inmates.
DOC ADP‟s used in the projections were based on the Quarterly Reports with Sheriff populations extracted. Because
there was limited historical data for the originating counties of county-sentenced women held at DOC, snapshots
were used to identify the appropriate distribution of this population to Sheriffs. DOC provided civil commitment
populations, disaggregated by type and facility for 2006 through 2009. With limited data of civil commitments, sex
offenders in core treatment and 52A‟s, these populations were extrapolated based on data from 2006 through 2009
- 37 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1

and deducted from the 2000 through 2005 DOC ADP‟s to create a consistent data set from which to base the
projections. Civil commitments and 52A‟s were projected separately. Extrapolation, used when historic data was not
available, assumes that conditions influencing civil commitments, 52A‟s and sentenced sex offenders in core
treatment remained consistent since 2000.
Utilizing this data, the following methods were used to predict the future bedspace needs in 2020.


Historical Trend Increase - Estimated future growth based on percentage change derived from available
historical ADP data for 2000 to 2009.



Actual Number Increase – Estimated future growth based on an actual number change derived from
available historical ADP data for 2000 to 2009.



Rate of Change of Incarceration Rate to Population – Linked the ADP projection to the area‟s current
incarceration rate plus the historic average annual rate of growth. The rate is then multiplied by future
population projections to estimate future ADP.



Ratio to Population - Applied the current ratio of ADP to projected population.



Linear Regression - Performs a regression analysis on the historic data.



Exponential Smoothing ARIMA – Identifies levels and trends by smoothing the latest data points to
decrease irregularity and adds a seasonality factor. This method is an alternate ARIMA method. It gives
older data progressively less weight while new data is weighed more.



Box-Jenkins ARIMA – Uses an Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average technique from a computerized
formula. This method is typically used for accurate short-term projections of data that shows predictable
repetitive cycles and patterns.

The statistically valid models were determined and averaged to project ADP based on historic trends. The ARIMA
models with r-squared values lower than 0.8 were excluded, due to unexplained variance in historic data. The ARIMA
model could not be used with extrapolated data.
In order to translate population (ADP) into bedspace needs, population projections were multiplied by a factor (5% for
DOC and 15% for Sheriffs) to address varying custody needs such as single bunking for disciplinary cases as well as
peaking factors. The larger percentage for Sheriffs is due to the greater range of custody levels accommodated at a
single facility whereas DOC has multiple facilities to handle the different custody levels.
As will be discussed in later sections, sub-acute medical and mental health bedspaces were each calculated at 1.5%
of the Sheriff bedspace needs and 3.5% of DOC‟s bedspace needs.
Based on this methodology, the summary of bedspace needs disaggregated by bedspace type, based on the current
classification system and without any policy changes is illustrated in Table 1.1. Populations have been assigned by
jurisdiction and not where they are currently housed (such as county women in DOC facilities). The exception is the
52A‟s, which are shown in the DOC pretrial male counts in the following table.

- 38 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1

9,351
844
10,194
20,240
1,190
21,430

12,068
1,151
13,218
22,914
1,480
24,394

14,125
1,336
15,461
25309
1682
26,991

166
17
183

242
242

Medical / MH Acute
Care Bedspace Need

2,057
186
2,243
2,395
202
2,597

242
242

Total CMP Housing
w/ civil commitments

7,293
658
7,952
17,845
988
18,833

166
17
183

247
247

654
17
671

11,838
363
12,201

112
3
115

247
247

14,125
1,336
15,461
654 25,963
17 1,700
671 27,662

141
13
155
253
17
270

Sexually Dangerous

11,184
346
11,530

Mentally Ill

10,846
330
11,176

Substance Abuse

10,889
346
11,235

Civil Commitments

Total Civil
Commitments

353
353

Total CMP Housing
Sentenced + Pretrial

0
0

Sentenced and Pretrial

212
20
232
603
32
635

338
16
354

Total Secure Beds:

212
20
232
603
32
635

Total Sentenced

6,870
618
7,488
16,286
924
17,209

(DOC 16.5% ; Sheriffs
22%)

4,774
492
5,267
5,069
492
5,561

353

10,552
330
10,881

Pre-Release

391
12
404

Total Secure
Sentenced Beds

Medical
Sub-Acute Beds

391
12
404

353

295

9,416
306
9,722

295

Sex Offenders
in Treatment

Mental Health
Sub-Acute Beds

DOC
Men
Women
Subtotal
Sheriffs
Men
Women
Subtotal
Total Men
Total Women
Totals

Sentenced
Secure Beds

General
Population

Pretrial (52A's in DOC)

Table 1-1 Summary Bedspace Needs in 2020 based on Current Classification without Policy Changes

Should no sentencing reforms be implemented, the 2009 ADP of approx. 24,000 (which includes over 1,000 federal
and out-of-state inmates in Sheriff facilities and 628 civil commitments in the DOC) is expected to grow to
approximately 24,425 excluding civil commitments in the DOC and federal and out-of-state inmates in Sheriff
facilities. This 2020 population will require a total bedspace need of approx. 26,991. Although incarcerated population
trends are flattening and in some cases declining, this increase represents a significant addition to the
Massachusetts Corrections System. Additionally, as will be discussed in Chapter 2, additional bedspaces are needed
to address ongoing overcrowding and ADA compliance. With limited funding available, maintaining the status quo is
not sustainable. Every effort to implement reform will be required to meet the needs of the Corrections System in the
future and over time, including sentencing reform, incarceration alternatives, programs to reduce recidivism and
regionalization of facilities and services.

BASELINE CAPACITY REDEFINED
With the bedspace needs projected, an assessment of bedspace capacity in existing facilities is required in order to
determine the number of new bedspaces and type of new bedspaces that will be required.
In compliance with M.G.L. Chapter 799, Section 21, overcrowding has been reported as the difference between the
capacity reported at the time a facility was originally designed (Design Capacity) and the current number of inmates
occupying the same facility. However, the use of the Design Capacity as a basis for reporting overcrowding presents
a potentially misleading picture. Because design standards have been modified over the years, the resulting Design
Capacities of facilities can vary quite dramatically, especially between very old facilities and recently constructed
ones. Although the DOC revises capacity when facilities have been significantly renovated or circumstances warrant
re-evaluation (Rated Capacity), this does not appear to be the case for all Sheriff facilities. In addition to building
code requirements, the American Correctional Association (ACA) applies minimum space recommendations as part
of the certification process. While these recommendations are a factor in certification, various remedies are allowed
to enable an existing facility to attain or maintain certification even when those space recommendations cannot be
met. And in fact, the ACA continually modifies these space recommendations. Although the basis of Occupancy
Permits, Design Capacity does not factor in these changing standards and does not present a consistent basis for
comparison of the level of overcrowding throughout the system.
- 39 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1

A second method of reporting is “Current Beds” based on the existing bedspaces that a jurisdiction proposes in
order to accommodate the demands placed on the system. While this approach is universally employed by operators,
in law suits involving conditions of confinement, the court typically seeks a more “scientific” approach to defining
capacity. Further complicating this is the reporting (or lack of reporting) of “non-conventional” beds. Non-conventional
adjustments include the conversion of gymnasiums, storage areas and program spaces to dormitories to deal with
overcrowding due to population surges. Although vetted with Code Officials, these measures are employed to
address the demands within the system and are not ideal. An estimate prepared during the development of the CMP
indicated that as many as 1,000 “non-conventional” beds were in the system at that time.
In short, a consistent definition of capacity is needed for planning purposes in order to determine the projected
bedspace shortfall and for more consistently quantifying overcrowding across the system, including DOC and Sheriff
facilities. While not intended to replace Design Capacity, a CMP Baseline Capacity was developed to evaluate all
facilities utilizing consistent criteria. However, the CMP Baseline Capacity can be used to identify opportunities where
Design Capacity should be further investigated for potential revision and where targeted improvements could yield a
greater capacity.
To demonstrate the level of crowding and the importance of utilizing a consistent format for measuring capacity, a
series of tables were developed. Bedspace numbers have been developed for each DOC and county correctional
facility using three methods:
1. Average Daily Population (ADP) – The average daily population in 2009 as reported in the First Quarter of
2010 Overcrowding Report; it should be noted that the 2009 ADP‟s for Sheriffs include federal and out-ofstate inmates and detainees, as well as some 52A‟s detainees. The DOC ADP included civil commitments
as well as some county women and some 52A‟s.
2. Current Beds – The number of beds including handicapped accessible beds that a facility reports.
3. Design Capacity / Rated Capacity – The number that has historically been used as the number of beds a
facility intended to accommodate at initial occupancy. If additions have been made and/or the facility has
been reassessed by a rating official, the design capacity reflects the additional bedspaces and is referred to
as Rated Capacity. Non-conventional bedspaces are typically not included.
Table 1-2 on the following page illustrates the difference between 2009 ADP, Current Beds, and the original design
capacity for DOC institutions. As shown in Table 1-2, facilities were operating at almost full capacity with few vacant
current beds. The total ADP in DOC facilities in 2009 (ADP = 11,252 – not including the Women & Children’s Program) is
very close to the current capacity (Current Beds = 11,968). In fact, when translating the 2009 ADP to bedspaces required
by applying a multiplier of 5% for peaking and classification issues (discussed later in this Chapter), a total of 11,815
bedspaces would be expected. The difference between Current Beds and 2009 bedspace need is approximately 150 beds
or 1.3% of the total beds. The total number of current beds exceeds the Design Capacity by 51% and the ADP is 42%
above Design Capacity.
Only Massachusetts Alcohol and Substance Abuse Center (MASAC) had an ADP lower than the Design Capacity. North
Central Correctional Institute (NCCI) Minimum had an ADP equal to the Design Capacity. The remaining facilities were
operating over Design Capacity, ranging from 7% at MCI Cedar Junction to the most extreme example of MCI Concord
operating at 212% above Design Capacity.
When comparing ADP to Design Capacity by custody, the greatest overcrowding is in Medium Custody at 55% over
Design Capacity with Current Beds at 64% over Design Capacity. Minimum Custody beds appear to be the least
overcrowded with the ADP at only 5% over the Design Capacity and the current beds at 33% over the Design Capacity. A
- 40 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1

more aggressive reclassification system reassigning more inmates to minimum custody could alleviate some overcrowding
in Medium Custody facilities in the short-term.
Table 1-2 Comparison of Current Bed and Design Capacity Definitions for DOC Facilities
Facility

ADP 2009

Current
Beds

Design
Capacity
2009

% ADP of
Design
Capacity

% Current
Beds to
Design
Capacity

The Department of Correction
Maximum Custody
MCI Cedar Junction- incl 35 medium beds
676
Souza Baranowski Correctional Center
1,243
Sub Total
1,919
Medium Custody
Bay State Correctional Center
314
Bridgewater State Hospital
346
L. Shattuck Hospital Correctional Unit -*not incl.
25*
Massachusetts Treatment Center
627
MCI Concord
1,303
MCI Framingham
613
MCI Norfolk
1,511
MCI Shirley (Medium)
1,198
North Central Correctional Institute (Medium)
1,000
Old Colony Correctional Center (Medium)
812
Southeastern Correctional Center
NA
Sub Total
7,724
Minimum Custody
Mass Alcohol & Substance Abuse Center
139
MCI Plymouth
205
MCI Shirley (Minimum)
276
North Central Correctional Institute (Minimum)
30
Old Colony Correctional Center (Minimum)
156
Sub Total
806
Minimum/Pre-Release Custody
Boston Pre-Release Center
189
Northeastern Correctional Center
267
South Middlesex Correctional Center
154
Pondville Correctional Center
193
Women & Children Program - previoulsy not occuppied - not assessed
Sub Total
803
Total Department of Correction
11,252

695
1,280
1,975

633
1,024
1,657

107%
121%
116%

110%
125%
119%

318
394
29*
579
1,368
696
1,472
1,547
948
820
NA
8,142

266
227
24*
561
614
452
1,084
720
568
480
NA
4,972

118%
152%
NA
112%
212%
136%
139%
166%
176%
169%
NA
155%

120%
174%
NA
103%
223%
154%
136%
215%
167%
171%
NA
164%

236
250
342
30
160
1,018

236
151
249
30
100
766

59%
136%
111%
100%
156%
105%

100%
166%
137%
100%
160%
133%

175
268
186
204

150
150
125
100

126%
178%
123%
193%

117%
179%
149%
204%

833
11,968

525
7,920

153%
142%

159%
151%

Source: STV and DCAM; October 2010

Since the support core (non-housing areas) in most institutions was sized based upon the original design, even small
increases in current beds to Design Capacity can create operational and staffing problems and must be considered.
Using the same definitions, Table 1-3 on the following page demonstrates the capacities and ADP in Sheriff facilities.
In the aggregate, the Sheriffs‟ facilities appear to be more crowded than the DOC facilities if simply comparing the Design
Capacity and the Current ADP. Collectively, in this scenario the Sheriffs are operating at a level of crowding of 48% above
Design Capacity. Current bedspace capacity is 74% above the Design Capacity. Based upon the Sheriff‟s Current Beds,
14,963 bedspaces are available for an ADP of 12,739. Translating the 2009 ADP to bedspace need by applying a multiplier
of 15% for classification and peaking (discussed later in this Chapter), 14,650 bedspaces would be expected. The
- 41 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1

difference between Current Beds and 2009 bedspace need is approximately 313 beds or 2.1% of the total beds. However,
the 2009 ADP‟s in some Sheriff facilities included federal and out-of-state inmates, estimated at over 1,000. Translating the
2009 ADP to bedspace needs, 1,150 beds are being used by inmates not in the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts
Corrections System. With these inmates excluded, there would be an excess of approximately 1,463 bedspaces, or
approximately 9.8% of the current inventory.
Table 1-3 Comparison of Current Bed and Design Capacity Definitions for Sheriff Facilities
Facility

ADP 2009

Current
Beds

Design
Capacity
2009

% ADP of
Design
Capacity

Sheriff Departments
Barnstable County Correctional Facility
Barnstable County Correctional Satelite
Berkshire County Jail & HOC
Berkshire County - Satellite Facility
Bristol County Jail & HOC
Bristol County Jail (Ash Street)
Dukes County Jail & HOC
Essex HOC - Middleton
Essex-Lawrence Correctional Center
Essex Women in Transition (WIT)
Franklin County Jail & HOC
Hampden County Jail & HOC - Ludlow
Hampden County Correctional Alcohol Center
Western Mass Regional Women's Corr. Center
Hampshire County Jail & HOC
Middlesex County HOC
Middlesex County Jail
Norfolk County Jail & HOC
Norfolk Satellite (Braintree)
Plymouth County Jail & HOC
Suffolk County HOC
Suffolk County Jail (Nashua Street)
Worcester County Jail & HOC
Total Sheriffs

402
NA
349
NA
1,159
180
30
1,185
362
44
268
1,402
174
150
285
841
369
647
1,270
1,698
713
1,211
12,739

588
NA
572
NA
1,210
212
38
1,371
340
24
330
1,588
182
230
280
1,183
274
744
1,727
1,983
777
1,310
14,963

300
NA
288
NA
360
206
19
500
135
23
144
1,178
125
228
248
874
161
302
52*
1,140
1,146
453
790
8,620

134%
NA
121%
NA
322%
87%
158%
237%
268%
191%
186%
119%
139%
66%
115%
96%
229%
214%
NA
111%
148%
157%
153%
148%

% Current
Beds to
Design
Capacity
196%
NA
199%
NA
336%
103%
200%
274%
252%
104%
229%
135%
146%
101%
113%
135%
170%
246%
NA
151%
173%
172%
166%
174%

Source: STV and DCAM; October 2010

Of the 23 Sheriff Department facilities, 5 are operating at more than double the original Design Capacity (shown as over
200% in the table over). Only 3 facilities had ADP‟s less than their Design Capacity.
Considering the combined capacity of both DOC and Sheriff facilities, Table 1-4 demonstrates that of the 16,540
bedspaces that constitute the total Design Capacities of the correctional institutions, there were 24,000 (23,991)
inmates and detainees, or approximately 7,460 individuals housed over the Design Capacity. Excluding the
approximately 1,000 federal and out-of-state inmates in Sheriff facilities, the additional inmates reduce to 6,460.
Table 1-4 Comparison of Current Bed and Design Capacity Definitions for DOC and Sheriff Facilities
% Current
Design
% ADP of
Current
Beds to
Facility
ADP 2009
Capacity
Design
Beds
Design
7/10/08
Capacity
Capacity
Combined DOC and Sheriffs Total
23,991
26,931
16,540
145%
163%
Source: STV and DCAM; October 2010

- 42 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1

Not surprising, the current beds align with 2009 bedspace needs since the DOC and Sheriffs must provide the needed
bedspaces on demand with limited resources and in the best manner possible. As previously discussed, Design Capacity
as a measure of overcrowding must be reconsidered in order to consistently address overcrowding and improve conditions
moving forward.
Finding a definition of capacity that aligns with the preferred operational method and management philosophy of 13
Sheriffs and the DOC is difficult, but essential in order to consistently and fairly evaluate facilities relative to each
other as well as to determine bedspace shortfall (defined as the difference between projected bedspace need and
the bedspace capacity). Several approaches to establishing a uniform definition of capacity were considered
including a benchmarked, but non-analytically supported, method of simply multiplying the initial Design Capacity
times 1.33 (representing a crowding index of 33%). This method would yield a bedspace supply of approximately
22,000 across the entire system.
Another method considered was the application of the American Correctional Association (ACA) physical plant
standards for Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI) and Adult Local Detention Facilities (ALDF) against all existing
DOC and Sheriff facilities. While the ACA standards have often been accepted by the courts as a reasonable basis
for defining the constitutionally acceptable conditions for confinement, a great deal is left open for local interpretation.
For example, calculation of the 35 unencumbered square feet per occupant in a single occupancy cell would mean
that some old facilities would have to close existing cells in order to meet the standard. Yet, using these cells that are
slightly smaller than the recommended size would not necessarily prevent ACA certification.
By applying both relevant ACA standards and State Building Codes that impact housing capacity, a Corrections
Master Plan (CMP) Baseline Capacity was established for each correctional facility. The CMP Baseline Capacity
does not represent the number of inmates expected to be housed at a given facility today and is not intended to
replace Design / Rated Capacity. Rather, the CMP Baseline Capacity is a starting point in the planning for future
bedspace needs. By applying a consistent set of criteria, the CMP Baseline Capacity also provides a means to
compare facilities throughout the State, both Sheriff and DOC facilities, to understand the level of relative
overcrowding and identify where Design Capacity should be re-evaluated.
In an effort to define this “realistic” and defensible capacity for planning purposes, the physical dimensions that
provide the basis for the housing component were identified and included in the criteria that follow. The overarching
requirement was that all components of the facility must meet local life safety regulations. As the Current Beds are
greater than the CMP Baseline Capacity in almost all cases, the CMP Baseline Capacity does not override conditions
previously reviewed by Code Officials and accepted as part of ACA certifications.
The CMP Baseline Capacity criteria are outlined as follows:
5. A single cell that provides less than 35 unencumbered square feet can be counted as a capacity of one.
6. With the exception of an undersized single cell, all sleeping areas must provide 25 unencumbered
square feet per occupant or 50 unencumbered square feet for two inmates or 70 square feet total in a
double cell.
7. Every housing unit dayroom must provide a minimum of 35 square feet per occupant in the unit that will
occupy the dayroom at one time.
8. Per Massachusetts State Plumbing Code for Correctional facilities, the following plumbing fixtures are
required:
o

A shower must be provided on the basis of one for every eight inmates assigned to the unit.

- 43 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1

o

For dormitory housing units, one toilet per 8 inmates and one wash basin for every 6 inmates
assigned to the housing unit must be provided. For pre-release/minimum units that are not
locked down, one wash basin for every 8 inmates is allowed.

Notably missing in these basic criteria for measuring the capacity of a facility is the importance of the support core.
The ACA standards do not provide measurable physical standards for these areas, although performance measures
are recommended. The aim of the CMP was to develop a defensible methodology that could be applied through a
combination of “desktop reviews” of architectural plans supported by field inspections of the housing units. Clearly,
evaluation of the support core will be required on a facility basis prior to increasing capacity. As there are very few
cases where the CMP Baseline Capacity exceeds Current Beds, support cores would not be stretched further.
Existing handicapped accessible cell counts have been included in the CMP Baseline Capacity, where known.
Although the CMP Capacity in most cases does not exceed the current beds and in many cases is less, this
redefinition of capacity does not ensure that the correct percentage of cells are accessible and dispersed throughout
all custody levels or that programs, services and support spaces are accessible from every custody level. Although
Chapter 2 addresses existing conditions, a focused assessment of ADA compliance on a facility-by-facility basis is
required to develop a detailed transition plan towards compliance.
Since the CMP Baseline Capacity‟s focus is on permanent housing capacity, it includes all bedspaces that physically
meet the criteria, with the exception of health services beds. Because each facility‟s‟ use of bedspaces to handle
special management populations (such as disciplinary beds) vary dramatically and the CMP Baseline is developed
by applying criteria to the existing bedspace inventory, a more fair and evenly accountable method to accommodate
these operational issues was sought. Instead of deducting existing special management units from the CMP Baseline
Capacity, these operational issues are handled on the bedspace need side of the equation. In order to translate
population (ADP) into bedspace needs, population projections are multiplied by a factor (5% for DOC and 15% for
Sheriffs 1) to address varying custody needs such as single bunking for disciplinary cases as well as peaking factors.
In other words, the bedspace needs for each Sheriff and the DOC are increased to account for operational needs
such as special management beds.
In most cases, the CMP Baseline Capacity will be less than the current ADP and Current Beds. As previously stated,
the CMP Baseline Capacity does not represent the number of inmates expected to be housed at a given facility today
and is not intended to replace Design / Rated Capacity. Without the addition of new bedspaces into the system or a
reduction in the incarcerated population, the CMP Baseline Capacities (reduced further by 5-15% for operational
issues) cannot be imposed.
In many cases, minor improvements were identified that would allow an increase in the CMP Baseline Capacity and
possibly the Rated Capacity. Because these improvements would need to be assessed on a facility basis, Potential
Capacity denotes the maximum capacity that can be achieved with the implementation of targeted improvements that
address the criteria stated above. These improvements tend to focus on the addition of plumbing fixtures and/or
controls. Handicapped accessible fixtures, cell counts and program accessibility would also need to be assessed prior to
implementing these increased capacities. In cases where the CMP Baseline Capacity cannot be increased through
minor improvements, the Potential Capacity equals the CMP Baseline Capacity.
Using this approach, Table 1-5 presents the proposed CMP Baseline Capacity and Potential Capacity of facilities and a
summary of the improvements to each facility that will be necessary to attain the Potential Capacity. The percentage of
handicapped accessible beds and plumbing fixtures must be assessed to confirm if the Potential Capacity is attainable.
1 A larger percentage is applied to Sheriff ADP‟s due to the broader range of classifications required at a single facility whereas DOC has a longer term

population and multiple facilities to accommodate varying custody levels.

- 44 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1
Table 1-5 Comparison of Proposed and Existing Capacity Definitions
Facility

ADP 2009

Current
Beds

Design
Capacity
2009

CMP Baseline Potential
Capacity
Capacity

Basis for Achieving CMP Capacity

The Department of Correction
Maximum Custody
MCI Cedar Junction
Souza Baranowski Correctional Center
Sub Total
Medium Custody
Bay State Correctional Center
Bridgewater State Hospital
L. Shattuck Hospital Correctional Unit
Massachusetts Treatment Center
MCI Concord
MCI Framingham
MCI Norfolk
MCI Shirley (Medium)
North Central Correctional Institute
Old Colony Correctional Center
Southeastern Correctional Center
Sub Total
Minimum Custody
Mass Alcohol & Substance Abuse Center
MCI Plymouth
MCI Shirley (Minimum)
North Central Correctional Institute
Old Colony Correctional Center
Sub Total
Minimum/Pre-Release Custody
Boston Pre-Release Center
Northeastern Correctional Center
South Middlesex Correctional Center
Pondville Correctional Center
Women & Children Program
Sub Total
Total Department of Correction

676
1,243
1,919

695
1,280
1,975

633
1,024
1,657

379
1,152
1,531

565 Add 27 shwr**
2,304 Add 144 shower controls**
2,869

314
346
25*
627
1,303
613
1,511
1,198
1,000
812
NA
7,724

318
394
29*
579
1,368
696
1,472
1,547
948
820
NA
8,142

266
227
24*
561
614
452
1,084
720
568
480
NA
4,972

166
250
24*
417
595
400
894
1,040
426
240
NA
4,428

166
258
24*
557
595
432
1,074
1,560
450
270
NA
5,362

139
205
276
30
156
806

236
250
342
30
160
1,018

236
151
249
30
100
766

150
160
306
30
192
838

189
267
154
193
803
11,252

175
268
186
204
833
11,968

150
150
125
100
525
7,920

136
136
155
178

238
160
187
210

605
7,402

795
10,062

402
NA
349
NA
1,159
180
30
1,185
362
44
268
1,402
174
150
285
841
369
647
1,270
1,698
713
1,211
12,739

588
NA
572
NA
1,210
212
38
1,371
340
24
330
1,588
182
230
280
1,183
274
744
1,727
1,983
777
1,310
14,963

300
NA
288
NA
360
206
19
500
135
23
144
1,178
125
228
248
874
161
302
52*
1,140
1,146
453
790
8,620

404
NA
516
NA
813
74
26
802
174
24
238
1,098
182
240
304
684
161
372
52*
914
1,077
432
812
9,347

560
NA
580
NA
865
74
26
915
328
24
334
1,098
182
240
315
987
161
458
52*
1,442
1,574
442
1,170
11,775

23,991

26,931

16,540

16,749

21,837

Add 2 shwr**
*Not permanent housing, not included
Add 20 shwr**
Add 2 sink, 18 shwr**, 2 toilet
Add 22 shwr**, 6 sinks, 2 toilets
Add 65shwr**
Add 3 shwr**
Add 32 shower controls**
Unoccupied

150
294 19 sinks,15 shwr**, 15 toilets
370 sprinkler system
30
192
1,036
Add 14 sink, 10 shwr**,4 toilets
Add 3 sinks, 2 shwr**, 2 toilets
Add 3 sinks, 3 shwr**, 4 toilets
Add 5 sinks, 5 shwr**, 5 toilets
CMP not assessed - previously unoccupied

Sheriff Departments
Barnstable County Correctional Facility
Barnstable County Correctional Sattelite
Berkshire County Jail & HOC
Berkshire County - Satellite Facility
Bristol County Jail & HOC
Bristol County Jail (Ash Street)
Dukes County Jail & HOC
Essex HOC - Middleton
Essex-Lawrence Correctional Center
Essex Women in Transition (WIT)
Franklin County Jail & HOC
Hampden County Jail & HOC - Ludlow
Hampden County Correctional Alcohol Ctr.
Western Mass Reg. Women's Corr. Center
Hampshire County Jail & HOC
Middlesex County HOC
Middlesex County Jail
Norfolk County Jail & HOC
Norfolk Satellite (Braintree)
Plymouth County Jail & HOC
Suffolk County HOC
Suffolk County Jail (Nashua Street)
Worcester County Jail & HOC
Total Sheriffs
Combined DOC and Sheriffs Total

Add 20 shwr**
Unoccupied
Add 8 shwr**
Unoccupied
Add 9 sinks, 7 shwr**, 4 toilets

Add 17sinks, 14 shwr**, 12 toilets
Add 23 sinks, 11 shwr**, 3 toilets
Leased Facility
Add 12 shwr**
Leased Facility
Add 2 shwr**

Add 13 sinks, 7 shwr**
*Unoccupied, not included in total
Add 58 shwr
Add 34 sinks, 38 shwr**, 2 toilets
Add 5 shwr**
Add 11 sinks, 41 shwr**, 9 toilets

Source: STV and DCAM; October 2010; ** = where new showers are not feasible, possible shower controls to be provided instead; Does not include Bristol ICE Bldg

- 45 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1

The total CMP Baseline Capacity in the Corrections System today is 16,749 bedspaces, close to the Design Capacity
(16,540) but significantly less than the approximately 22,000 capacity derived from the 1.33 multiplier method.
Table 1-5 also includes the Potential Capacity of each facility based on implementing specific improvements related
to the standards used to derive the CMP Baseline Capacity. Should these improvements prove to be feasible, the
system capacity can be increased to approximately 21,837 beds, an additional 5,088 beds.
In the comparison of Design Capacity to CMP Baseline Capacity, of note is the collective decrease in DOC
bedspaces and the collective increase in Sheriff bedspaces. While DOC‟s capacity is reduced by 518 beds (6.5%
reduction) when comparing Design Capacity to CMP Baseline Capacity, the Sheriffs‟ facilities collectively increase by
727 beds (8.4% increase). One quarter of the Sheriff facilities (5 of 20) have CMP Baseline Capacities lower than
their Design Capacities compared to half (11 of 20) of DOC facilities with lower CMP Capacities.
Table 1-6 on the following page illustrates the comparison between CMP Baseline Capacities and Potential
Capacities to the 2009 ADP at each facility. By applying the CMP Baseline Capacity criteria and comparing it to 2009
ADP‟s, it becomes clear that DOC is operating at 52% over its CMP Baseline Capacity as opposed to 42% over its
Design Capacity. This suggests that the bedspace conditions in DOC facilities collectively are actually worse than the
Design Capacity would indicate.
On the other hand, the Sheriffs collectively are operating at 36% over their combined CMP Baseline Capacity as
opposed to 48% over the combined Design Capacity. This suggests that the bedspace conditions in Sheriff facilities
collectively are better than the Design Capacities would indicate, although still overcrowded. This is not surprising
because a significant capital investment has been made over the last 10 years on Sheriff facilities. With the
elimination of federal and out-of-state inmates included in the ADP‟s, the overcrowding could be alleviated further to
36% over Design Capacity and 26% over CMP Baseline Capacity.
While comparisons to 2009 ADP do not take any growth into account, they do illustrate facilities relative to each other
in 2009. Potential Capacity illustrates the maximum increase of bedspaces within existing facilities without new
construction, (limited in large part to the addition of plumbing fixtures) and indicates opportunities to increase Design
Capacity and alleviate crowded conditions. With these improvements, the combined DOC and Sheriff crowding can
be reduced to 10% over Potential Capacity as opposed to 45% over Design Capacity or 43% over CMP Baseline
Capacity.
The DOC has 10 of 20 facilities where these improvements can yield Potential Capacities greater than their Design
Capacity. Of the 20 Sheriff facilities, 13 facilities show potential for increased capacity after improvements. Although
the DOC‟s total CMP Baseline Capacity is less than its total Design Capacity, there is an opportunity to increase
capacity by as much as 2,660 bedspaces, a 36% increase over CMP Baseline Capacity. Collectively, an increase of
2,428 bedspaces, a 26% increase over CMP Baseline Capacity of Sheriff facilities may be possible.
In fact, in 8 DOC facilities and 8 Sheriff facilities the potential capacity improvements can result in capacity greater
than the 2009 ADP. These facilities include Souza Baronowski, MCI Shirley Medium, MCI Plymouth, MASAC, MCI
Shirley Minimum, Boston Pre-release, SMCC, and Pondville in the DOC and Sheriff facilities in Barnstable,
Berkshire, Franklin, 2 facilities in Hampden, Hampshire, Middlesex, and Plymouth counties. Evaluation of the
feasibility and relative need for these improvements at each facility should be undertaken as a means to increase
capacity in the short term. Compared to the 2009 ADP, the DOC facilities‟ overcrowding could be reduced to 12%
above Potential Capacity instead of 42% over Design Capacity while the Sheriffs‟ overcrowding could be reduced to
11% over capacity instead of 45% over Design Capacity. With the removal of approximately 1,000 federal inmates
from Sheriff facilities, the overcrowding could be reduced to 3%.
- 46 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1
Table 1-6 Comparison of Capacities to 2009 ADP
Facility

ADP 2009

Design
Capacity
2009

% ADP of
Design
Capacity

CMP
Baseline
Capacity

%ADP
of CMP
Capacity

Potential
Capacity

% ADP
of Potential
Capacity

The Department of Correction
Maximum Custody
MCI Cedar Junction
Souza Baranowski Correctional Center
Sub Total
Medium Custody
Bay State Correctional Center
Bridgewater State Hospital
L. Shattuck Hospital Correctional Unit
Massachusetts Treatment Center
MCI Concord
MCI Framingham
MCI Norfolk
MCI Shirley (Medium)
North Central Correctional Institute
Old Colony Correctional Center
Southeastern Correctional Center
Sub Total
Minimum Custody
Mass Alcohol & Substance Abuse Center
MCI Plymouth
MCI Shirley (Minimum)
North Central Correctional Institute
Old Colony Correctional Center
Sub Total
Minimum/Pre-Release Custody
Boston Pre-Release Center
Northeastern Correctional Center
South Middlesex Correctional Center
Pondville Correctional Center
Women & Children Program
Sub Total
Total Department of Correction

676
1,243
1,919

633
1,024
1,657

7%
121%
116%

379
1,152
1,531

178%
108%
125%

565
2,304
2,869

120%
54%
67%

314
346
25*
627
1,303
613
1,511
1,198
1,000
812
NA
7,724

266
227
24*
561
614
452
1,084
720
568
480
NA
4,972

118%
152%
NA
112%
212%
136%
139%
166%
176%
169%
NA
155%

166
250
24*
417
595
400
894
1,040
426
240
NA
4,428

189%
138%
NA
150%
219%
153%
169%
115%
235%
338%
NA
174%

166
258
24*
557
595
432
1,074
1,560
450
270
NA
5,362

189%
134%
NA
113%
219%
142%
141%
77%
222%
301%
NA
144%

139
205
276
30
156
806

236
151
249
30
100
766

59%
136%
111%
100%
156%
105%

150
160
306
30
192
838

93%
128%
90%
100%
81%
96%

150
294
370
30
192
1,036

93%
70%
75%
100%
81%
78%

189
267
154
193
803
11,252

150
150
125
100
525
7,920

126%
178%
123%
193%

136
136
155
178

139%
196%
99%
108%

238
160
187
210

79%
167%
82%
92%

153%
142%

605
7,402

133%
152%

795
10,062

101%
112%

402
NA
349
NA
1,159
180
30
1,185
362
44
268
1,402
174
150
285
841
369
647
1,270
1,698
713
1,211
12,739

300
NA
288
NA
360
206
19
500
135
23
144
1,178
125
228
248
874
161
302
52*
1,140
1,146
453
790
8,620

134%
NA
121%
NA
322%
87%
158%
237%
268%
191%
186%
119%
139%
66%
115%
96%
229%
214%
NA
111%
148%
157%
153%
148%

404
NA
516
NA
813
74
26
802
174
24
238
1,098
182
240
304
684
161
372
52*
914
1,077
432
812
9,347

100%
NA
68%
NA
143%
243%
115%
148%
208%
183%
113%
128%
96%
63%
94%
123%
229%
174%
NA
139%
158%
165%
149%
136%

560
NA
580
NA
865
74
26
915
328
24
334
1,098
182
240
315
987
161
458
52*
1,442
1,574
442
1,170
11,775

72%
NA
60%
NA
134%
243%
115%
130%
110%
183%
80%
128%
96%
63%
90%
85%
229%
141%
NA
88%
108%
161%
104%
108%

23,991

16,540

145%

16,749

143%

21,837

110%

Sheriff Departments
Barnstable County Correctional Facility
Barnstable County Correctional Sattelite
Berkshire County Jail & HOC
Berkshire County - Satellite Facility
Bristol County Jail & HOC
Bristol County Jail (Ash Street)
Dukes County Jail & HOC
Essex HOC - Middleton
Essex-Lawrence Correctional Center
Essex Women in Transition (WIT)
Franklin County Jail & HOC
Hampden County Jail & HOC - Ludlow
Hampden County Correctional Alcohol Ctr.
Western Mass Reg. Women's Corr. Center
Hampshire County Jail & HOC
Middlesex County HOC
Middlesex County Jail
Norfolk County Jail & HOC
Norfolk Satellite (Braintree)
Plymouth County Jail & HOC
Suffolk County HOC
Suffolk County Jail (Nashua Street)
Worcester County Jail & HOC
Total Sheriffs
Combined DOC and Sheriffs Total

- 47 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1

Based on the results of the CMP Baseline Capacity criteria, opportunities to increase Design Capacity / Rated
Capacity should be investigated further even though the ADP‟s still exceed all capacity definitions in many cases.
Table 1-7 illustrates the impact of the CMP Baseline Capacity and Potential Capacity to Current Beds for the DOC
with bedspace differences listed and also expressed as a percentage. Not surprising, applying the CMP Baseline
Capacity criteria results in reductions for all custody levels in the DOC, totaling a combined reduction of 4,333 from
Current Beds. The bedspace reductions by custody level are summarized below and in Table 1-7:
 Maximum:
 Medium:

 Minimum:
 Pre-Release

- 444 bedspaces
-3,714 bedspaces

-180 bedspaces
-228 bedspaces

With a 46% decrease of the current medium custody beds, the greatest reductions in capacity are at MCI Concord (773), OCCC Medium (-580), MCI Norfolk (578), NCCI Medium (-522) and MCI Shirley Medium (-507). However, this
decrease can be reduced to 34% with potential capacity improvements.
Table 1-7 Comparison of the CMP Capacity & Potential Capacity to Current Beds - DOC
Facility

Current
Beds

Bedspace % Bedspace
Difference: Difference
Current to Current to
CMP
CMP

CMP
Baseline
Capacity

Potential
Capacity

Potential
Bed
Increase
over CMP

Bedspace % Bedspace
Difference: Difference
Current to Current to
Potential
Potential

The Department of Correction
Maximum Custody
MCI Cedar Junction
695
379
Souza Baranowski Correctional Center
1,280
1,152
Sub Total
1,975
1,531
Medium Custody
Bay State Correctional Center
318
166
Bridgewater State Hospital
394
250
L. Shattuck Hospital Correctional Unit
29*
24*
Massachusetts Treatment Center
579
417
MCI Concord
1,368
595
MCI Framingham
696
400
MCI Norfolk
1,472
894
MCI Shirley (Medium)
1,547
1,040
North Central Correctional Institute (Medium)
948
426
Old Colony Correctional Center (Medium)
820
240
Southeastern Correctional Center
NA
NA
Sub Total
8,142
4,428
Minimum Custody
Mass Alcohol & Substance Abuse Center
236
150
MCI Plymouth
250
160
MCI Shirley (Minimum)
342
306
North Central Correctional Institute (Minimum)
30
30
Old Colony Correctional Center (Minimum)
160
192
Sub Total
1,018
838
Minimum/Pre-Release Custody
Boston Pre-Release Center
175
136
Northeastern Correctional Center
268
136
South Middlesex Correctional Center
186
155
Pondville Correctional Center
204
178
Women & Children Program - previoulsy not occuppied - not assessed
Sub Total
833
605
Total Department of Correction
11,968
7,402

(316)
(128)
(444)

-45%
-10%
-22%

565
2,304
2,869

186
1,152
1,338

(130)
1,024
894

-19%
80%
45%

(152)
(144)
NA
(162)
(773)
(296)
(578)
(507)
(522)
(580)
NA
(3,714)

-48%
-37%

-46%

166
258
24*
557
595
432
1,074
1,560
450
270
NA
5,362

0
8
0
140
0
32
180
520
24
30
934

(152)
(136)
(22)
(773)
(264)
(398)
13
(498)
(550)
(2,780)

-48%
-35%
0%
-4%
-57%
-38%
-27%
1%
-53%
-67%
0%
-34%

(86)
(90)
(36)
32
(180)

-36%
-36%
-11%
0%
20%
-18%

150
294
370
30
192
1,036

0
134
64
0
0
198

(86)
44
28
32
18

-36%
18%
8%
0%
20%
2%

(39)
(132)
(31)
(26)
(228)
(4,566)

-22%
-49%
-17%
-13%

238
160
187
210

102
24
32
32

63
(108)
1
6

-27%
-38%

795
10,062

190
2,660

(38)
(1,906)

36%
-40%
1%
3%
0%
-5%
-16%

-28%
-57%
-43%
-39%
-33%
-55%
-71%

Source: STV and DCAM; October 2010

The CMP Baseline Capacity represents a 27% reduction in current Minimum / Pre-Release Custody bedspaces even
though the decrease is only 228 beds. With potential capacity improvements, this reduction can be decreased to 38
beds or 5%.
- 48 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1

For Minimum Custody, the CMP Baseline Capacity represents an 18% reduction (180 bedspaces less) that can be
translated to an increase of 2% above current beds (18 additional bedspaces) with potential capacity improvements.
For Maximum Custody, the CMP Baseline Capacity represents a 22% reduction that can be translated to an increase
of 45% (894 additional bedspaces) with potential capacity improvements.
The impact to individual facilities can be quite dramatic. The largest CMP Baseline Capacity reductions expressed as
a percentage of existing bedspaces are as follows:
 Old Colony Minimum (-71%)
 North Central Correctional Center (-55%)
 MCI Concord (-57%)
 Northeastern Correctional Center (-49%)
Of these facilities with the largest percentage of reduced capacity, potential capacity improvements have been
identified in all but MCI Concord, only MCI Concord has been identified to have potential capacity improvements
although they yield potentially only 78 bedspaces.
However, in some cases bedspace increases can be significant with improvements as illustrated in the Potential
Capacity figures. An additional 2,660 bedspaces can be recovered. Facilities most impacted by these potential
improvements include:
 Souza Baronowski (+1,152)
 MCI Shirley Medium (+520)
 MCI Cedar (+186)

 MCI Norfolk (+180)
 Massachusetts Treatment Center (+140)
 MCI Plymouth (+134)

Comparing CMP Baseline Capacity to Potential Capacity the greatest potential gains in number of bedspaces are in
the Maximum custody level. The total gain of 2,660 bedspaces is broken down as follows:
 Maximum:
 Medium:

 Minimum:
 Minimum/Pre-Release:

+1,338 bedspaces
+ 934 bedspaces

+198 bedspaces
+190 bedspaces

Assuming all the Potential Capacity improvements are possible, the impact of the CMP Baseline Capacity definition
can be significantly lessened. The decrease in bedspaces from the Current Capacity can be mitigated from 4,556
bedspaces to 1,906 bedspaces. Comparing Potential Capacity to Current Beds, the percentage change in beds by
custody category is as follows:
 Maximum:
 Medium:

 Minimum:
 Minimum/Pre-Release:

+45% or +894 beds
- 34% or -2,780 beds

+2% or -18 beds
-5% or -38 beds

These calculations focus on bedspace capacity in the system and do not address the demand for bedspaces in
specific custody levels. However, this redefinition of capacity does illustrate the level of overcrowding at each level as
currently employed within the system. In fact, the most dramatic reductions as a result of the capacity redefinition
highlight where beds have been added to the system in response to demand, notably in medium custody and to a
lesser degree minimum /pre-release.
In summary, the capacity of DOC will be approximately 4,556 less than the currently used capacity (Current Beds to
CMP Capacity) without standards-based improvements or approx. 38% less. However, with the implementation of
standards-based improvements (Potential Capacity) the capacity difference can be reduced to 1,906 beds.
- 49 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1

REGIONS OF THE COMMONWEALTH
Since the Commonwealth provides the majority of funding for both capital and operational incarceration needs to the
Sheriffs and the DOC, incarceration options should be considered holistically as a state-wide system. A fair question
is: “who is best suited to provide what” and what practices can cost-effectively reduce recidivism. To this end and as
will be discussed in more detail in the following Chapters, the Corrections Master Plan (CMP) takes a regional
approach towards addressing the needs of the Corrections System in 2020. Organizing the Commonwealth into four
service regions is required as a starting point to begin to assess needs regionally:
1. Region 1 - Northeast: Essex and Suffolk Sheriff‟s Offices; Shattuck Hospital Correctional Unit and Boston
Pre-Release Center of the DOC
2. Region 2 – Central: Middlesex, Norfolk, and Worcester Sheriff‟s Offices; Bay State Correctional Center,
MCI Cedar Junction, Souza Baranowski Correctional Center, MCI Concord, MCI Framingham, MCI Norfolk,
MCI Shirley, NCCI, NCC, SMCC, and Pondville Correctional Center of the DOC.
3. Region 3 – Southeast: Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, and Plymouth Sheriff‟s Offices; Bridgewater State
Hospital, Massachusetts Alcohol & Substance Abuse Center, Massachusetts Treatment Center, MCI
Plymouth, and Old Colony Correctional Center of the DOC.
4. Region 4 – West: Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire Sheriff‟s Offices. No DOC facilities are
currently located in the West Region.
Figure 1-1
Proposed Geographic Regions

- 50 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1

The proposed organization is based on geography in an attempt to create multi-jurisdictional arrangements that are
approximately equal in the number of Sheriff‟s Office inmates and facilities but are not necessarily an indication of
alliances or historical endeavors at service sharing.
In Table 1-8, a similar approach was used to illustrate the impact of the CMP Baseline Capacity and Potential
Capacity to Current Beds by bedspace differences for the 20 Sheriff facilities included in the CMP.
Table 1-8 Comparison of the CMP Capacity & Potential Capacity to Current Beds - Sheriff Departments
Facility

Current
Beds

Bedspace % Bedspace
Difference Difference
Current to Current to
CMP
CMP

CMP
Baseline
Capacity

Potential
Capacity

Potential
Bed
Increase
over CMP

Bedspace % Bedspace
Difference: Difference
Current to Current to
Potential
Potential

Sheriffs
Essex HOC - Middleton
Essex-Lawrence Correctional Center
Essex Women in Transition (WIT)
Suffolk County HOC
Suffolk County Jail (Nashua Street)
Northeast Region
Middlesex County HOC
Middlesex County Jail
Norfolk County Jail & HOC
Norfolk Satellite (Braintree) not incl in count
Worcester County Jail & HOC
Central Region
Barnstable County Correctional Facility
Barnstable County Correctional Sattelite
Bristol County Jail & HOC
Bristol County Jail (Ash Street)
Dukes County Jail & HOC
Plymouth County Jail & HOC
Southeast Region
Berkshire County Jail & HOC
Berkshire County - Satellite Facility
Franklin County Jail & HOC
Hampden County Jail & HOC - Ludlow
Hampden County Correctional Alcohol Center
Western Mass Regional Women's Corr. Center
Hampshire County Jail & HOC
West Region
Total Sheriffs
Combined DOC and Sheriffs Total

1,371
340
24
1,983
777
4,495
1,183
274
744
1,310
3,511
588
NA
1,210
212
38
1,727
3,775
572
NA
330
1,588
182
230
280
3,182
14,963

802
174
24
1,077
432
2,509
684
161
372
52*
812
2,029
404
NA
813
74
26
914
2,231
516
NA
238
1,098
182
240
304
2,578
9,347

(569)
(166)
(906)
(345)
(1,986)
(499)
(113)
(372)
NA
(498)
(1,482)
(184)
NA
(397)
(138)
(12)
(813)
(1,544)
(56)
NA
(92)
(490)
10
24
(604)
(5,616)

-42%
-49%
0%
-46%
-44%
-44%
-42%
-41%
-50%

-28%
-31%
0%
4%
9%
-19%
-38%

915
328
24
1,574
442
3,283
987
161
458
52*
1,170
2,776
560
NA
865
74
26
1,442
2,967
580
NA
334
1,098
182
240
315
2,749
11,775

113
154
0
497
10
774
303
0
86
0
358
747
156
0
52
0
0
528
736
64
0
96
0
0
0
11
171
2,428

(456)
(12)
(409)
(335)
(1,212)
(196)
(113)
(286)
(140)
(735)
(28)
(345)
(138)
(12)
(285)
(808)
8
4
(490)
10
35
(433)
(3,188)

-33%
-4%
0%
-21%
-43%
-27%
-17%
-41%
-38%
0%
-11%
-21%
-5%
0%
-29%
-65%
-32%
-17%
-21%
1%
0%
1%
-31%
0%
4%
13%
-14%
-21%

26,931

16,749

(10,182)

-38%

21,837

5,088

(5,094)

-19%

-38%
-42%
-31%
-33%
-65%
-32%
-47%
-41%
-10%

The application of the CMP Baseline Capacity results in a 38% reduction of current beds in Sheriff facilities
collectively. While the reduction at most facilities in the 30-45% range, several facilities‟ capacity reductions exceed
this range. These facilities include:
 Bristol County Jail (Ash Street) –65%
 Norfolk County Jail / HOC –50%
 Essex – Lawrence Facility –49%

 Plymouth County Jail /HOC –47%
 Suffolk HOC – 46%

With a collective bedspace decrease of 5,616 bedspaces in Sheriff Department facilities‟ capacities, the impact to
Sheriff facilities by region vary slightly. The greatest capacity reduction in both number of beds (-1,986) and
percentage to current beds lost (44% loss) is the Northeastern Region which includes Essex and Suffolk counties.
The impact to the Central Region which includes Middlesex, Norfolk, and Worcester counties is a capacity reduction
of 1,482 beds or 42% including Middlesex Jail.
- 51 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1

The impact to the Southeastern Region which includes Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, and Plymouth counties is a
capacity reduction of 1,544 beds or 41% reduction.
And finally the impact to the Western Region which includes Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire counties
is a 604 bed capacity reduction or a 19% decrease.
Assuming standards-derived improvements are feasible, the Potential Capacity represents an increase of 2,428 beds
over the CMP Baseline Capacity. With respect to the Current Beds, the Potential Capacity represents a capacity
reduction of 3,188 beds instead of the 5,616 beds associated with the CMP Baseline Capacity.
The Northeastern Region will experience the greatest capacity reduction of their current beds (1,986) yet the
percentage reduction of current beds is decreased to 27% from 44% with potential capacity improvements. In fact,
the Northeast Region has the greatest potential capacity increase.
The Central Region standards-derived improvements could potentially mitigate the capacity reduction from 1,482
beds to 735 or a 21% decrease of current beds as opposed to the CMP Baseline Capacity reduction of 42%.
The Southeastern Region‟s reduction in capacity can be decreased to 808 beds (from 1,544) or a difference of 21%
instead of the 41% reduction without improvements.
The Western Region‟s reduction can be decreased to 433 beds (from 604) or a difference of 24% instead of the 38%
decrease without improvements.
Considering the system as a whole, the DOC and Sheriffs collectively can increase capacity by 5,088 beds over the
total CMP Baseline Capacity of 16,749 to yield a 21,837 Potential Capacity, representing a collective capacity
reduction of 19% of total Current Beds.

CONCLUSION
Bedspace projections for the Corrections System are estimated to total approximately 26,991 by 2020, excluding civil
commitments (27,662 with civil commitments). As summarized in Table 1-9, the total 2020 bedspace shortfall without
civil commitments is anticipated to range between 60 bedspaces using Current Beds, 10,242 bedspaces using CMP
Baseline Capacity and 5,154 bedspaces using Potential Capacity.
Table 1-9 Summary of Bedspace Needs in 2020 without Policy Changes excluding Civil Commitments
Target Bedspace 2020

Sheriffs
15,461

DOC
11,530

Total
26,991

14,963

11,968

26,931

(498)

438

(60)

9,347

7,402

16,749

Current Beds

Shortfall- Current Beds
CMP Baseline Capacity

Shortfall- CMP Baseline Capacity
Potential Capacity

(6,114)

(4,128)

(10,242)

11,775

10,062

21,837

(3,686)

(1,468)

(5,154)

8,620

7,920

16,540

(6,841)

(3,610)

(10,451)

2020 Bedspace Shortfall
(based on Potential Capacity Definition)
Design Capacity

Shortfall- Design Capacity

Source: Carter Goble Associates 2010; DOC includes 52A's; civil commitments excluded

- 52 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1

Table 1-10 illustrates 2020 bedspace shortfalls with civil commitments included. Shortfalls range from 731 using
Current Beds, 10,914 using CMP Capacity and 5,825 using Potential Capacity.
Table 1-10 Summary of Bedspace Needs in 2020 without Policy Changes including Civil Commitments
Target Bedspace 2020

Sheriffs
15,461

DOC
12,201

Total
27,662

14,963

11,968

26,931

(498)

(233)

(731)

9,347

7,402

16,749

(6,114)

(4,799)

(10,914)

11,775

10,062

21,837

(3,686)

(2,139)

(5,825)

8,620

7,920

16,540

(6,841)

(4,281)

(11,122)

Current Beds

Shortfall- Current Beds
CMP Baseline Capacity

Shortfall- CMP Baseline Capacity
Potential Capacity

2020 Bedspace Shortfall
(based on Potential Capacity Definition)
Design Capacity

Shortfall- Design Capacity

Source: Carter Goble Associates 2010; DOC includes 52A's and civil commitments

It should be noted that the potential decommissioning of any facilities has not been included in the analysis in
Chapter 1. Rather, the focus has been on examining capacity in the status quo scenario.
In order to begin to quantify the shortfall and address the amount and type of investments required to meet this
demand, a consistent means of determining capacity across the system is required.
The CMP Baseline Capacity criteria provides a consistent means of analyzing facilities in order to gradually align the
entire system to the same level of compliance and create a baseline for moving forward. The impact of applying the
CMP Baseline Capacity standards has equally serious implications to the system‟s capacity as did using facilities‟
original design capacity as a baseline. In fact, the total CMP Baseline Capacity is not significantly different from the
total Design Capacity and it is clear that bringing facilities into alignment with the CMP Baseline Capacity standards
cannot be achieved immediately.
However, an analysis of Potential Capacity which involves implementing standards-driven improvements focused on
improving capacities and conditions can inform how to begin the process of improving conditions more uniformly and
alleviating overcrowding today while new bedspaces are added to the system. The assessment of capacity on a
facility basis also presents an opportunity to identify and implement ADA compliance throughout the system on a
facility-by facility basis.
To this end, by applying peaking and classification factors of 5% to the DOC‟s 2009 ADP and 15% to the Sheriffs
ADP, 2009 bedspace needs can be calculated and compared to the CMP Baseline Capacities. Assuming current
populations continue to be housed as they are today (county women and 52A‟s in the DOC tabulation and federal
and out-of-state inmates in the Sheriff tabulation), the bedspace needs were as follows:



DOC‟s bedspace needs for 2009: 11,865 (11,300 ADP x 1.05)
Sheriffs‟ bedspace needs for 2009: 14,662 (12,750 ADP x 1.15).

Comparing the CMP Baseline Capacity criteria to the 2009 bedspace needs yields a shortfall of approximately 4,463
in DOC facilities (11,865 - 7,402) and 5,315 in Sheriff facilities (14,662 – 9,347).

- 53 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Clarification of Incarceration Needs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 1

With the implementation of Potential Capacity improvements, the collective shortfalls can be reduced to
approximately 1,803 (11,865 – 10,062) for the DOC and 2,887 (14,662 – 11,775) for Sheriffs.
While this calculation does not necessarily address whether the type and location of bedspaces are aligned with
specific needs, it does illustrate the possible impact of standards-driven improvements today. Besides requiring an
investment in capital, achieving a system wide Potential Capacity of 21,837 will ultimately require assessment at each
individual facility to determine feasibility and ADA compliance.
In conclusion, Table 1-9 is a summary of the bedspace needs for the Sheriffs in aggregate and the DOC based upon
no policy changes from current practices except the transfer of civil commitments to more appropriate agencies.
Table 1-10 is a summary of the bedspace needs for the Sheriffs in aggregate and the DOC based upon no policy
changes from current practices and including civil commitments. It serves as a baseline as to the magnitude of the
shortfall and resulting financial implications should no actions be taken. Accepting this new capacity definition (CMP
Baseline Capacity / Potential Capacity) combined with population growth (the projections), the system will require the
implementation of potential capacity improvements as well as the addition of approx. 5,124 to 5,825 bedspaces by
2020 without any major changes in incarceration policies.
A significant increase in capital investment and operating budgets will be required to manage the anticipated growth
in the incarcerated population in Massachusetts if legislative and judicial actions are not implemented. As
overcrowding is an issue at most facilities to varying degrees today, anticipated population growth will only
exacerbate the current conditions beyond sustainability. Although the CMP‟s focus is on capital projects, every effort
will be required to enable the Commonwealth to meet its obligation with increasingly limited funding. Together with
the Potential Capacity, the CMP Baseline Capacity can define opportunities to consider upgrading the Design
Capacity at specific facilities.
This report will focus on the means to defining the capital implications of meeting these needs, determining the types
of bedspaces to be added to the system as well as outline opportunities to improve efficiency, alleviate crowding,
upgrade facilities, and support better outcomes by reducing recidivism.

- 54 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Clarification of Incarceration Needs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan
The Final Report

Chapter 2
Existing Facility Improvements
and Repairs

Chapter 2 Existing Facility Improvements and Repairs
This chapter outlines a framework for prioritizing facility improvements and repairs as an ongoing process to
compliment the system-wide improvements and larger capital project recommended in the CMP.

BACKGROUND
As outlined in Chapter 1, the Massachusetts Corrections system includes the Department of Corrections (DOC) and
14 Sheriff‟s Departments who collectively manage over 10 million square feet. These correctional facilities range in
age from the late 1800‟s to facilities completed within the last few years. Most facilities are located on campuses of
several buildings of assorted ages and conditions, although some facilities are a single building.
Of the 40 housing facilities containing bedspaces, almost half (19 facilities) were built in or after 1990. Another 7
facilities were built in the 1980‟s; the remaining 14 facilities were built prior to 1979 of which 4 were built in the
1800‟s.
In general, Sheriff facilities are newer than DOC facilities. Of the 20 Sheriff facilities, over half (13) were after 1990;
one quarter (5) were built after 2000; 8 were built in the 1990‟s. Of the remaining 7 facilities, 3 were built in the
1980‟s, 2 in the 1970‟s and 2 in the 1800‟s.
On the other hand, of the 20 DOC facilties over half (14) were built prior to 1990; of these older facilities, 4 were built
in the 1980‟s, 4 were built in the 1970‟s, 4 were built between 1955 and 1931, and 2 were built in the 1800‟s. Only 6
DOC facilities were built after 1990, of which only 2 were built after 2000.

CURRENT SYSTEM
Currently, each Sheriff and the DOC are responsible for the maintenance of their facilities. With aging facilities,
maintenance can be difficult to address resulting in a backlog. In addition to the age of facilities, other aspects
contributing to a backlog of deferred maintenance include:

- 55 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Existing Facility Improvements & Repairs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Existing Facility Improvement & Repairs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 2



Annual operating budgets that can vary while maintenance demands remain constant.



Increased „wear and tear‟ on typical jail and prisons is generally 3.5 times faster than other typical public
buildings, and crowded conditions at many facilities take an additional toll on building conditions.



Varying levels of maintenance department staffing and levels of expertise at each facility can result in
inconsistent quality of facility assessments and upgrades.

As an agency of the executive branch, DOC facilities have had a more centralized maintenance system, whereas the
Sheriff Departments have operated independently with varying maintenance capabilities and resources. In addition to
repairs made by facility staff, facilities are able to directly procure and control construction contracts in compliance
with M.G.L. c. 149, utilizing their annual operating budgets for structural and mechanical projects up to $250,000 in
estimated construction cost. For design and engineering services, facilities can hire design professionals directly
when design fees are less than $10,000 and the estimated construction cost is less than $100,000. Should these
parameters be exceeded, designers must be selected through the Designer Selection Board (DSB), frequently
referred to as “House Doctors”.
For projects greater than $250,000 but less than $2 million (regardless of the funding source), a request and approval
for delegation by the Commissioner of DCAM is required should an agency want to control and supervise the project.
Projects greater than $2 million in estimated construction costs are managed by DCAM.
Compliance with public bidding requirements, which vary depending on costs, is required in all cases. Studies
identifying the scope of work and cost of the project are required for projects over $100,000. These studies must be
certified by the DCAM Commissioner as well as the Sheriff or DOC Commissioner prior to commencement of design
regardless of the scope of work.

CAMIS / DEFERRED MAINTENANCE REQUESTS
In 1999 the Massachusetts legislature authorized a major new initiative to manage the state's real estate,
appropriating funds to conduct a comprehensive condition survey of the state's capital assets and to procure a
software package to manage the collected data and assist facilities in their daily maintenance activities. As a result,
DCAM, through its Office of Facilities Maintenance and Management, has implemented the comprehensive Capital
Asset Management Information System (CAMIS) program, including the CAMIS survey and the CAMIS software.
In addition to utilizing CAMIS for their internal maintenance activities, each agency is required to submit any deferred
maintenance requests beyond what they are able to undertake themselves (as noted above) to DCAM‟s Office of
Facilities Maintenance and Management OFM), which oversees the maintenance and repair of state-owned
buildings. Upon receipt of all requests, DCAM compiles and forwards the requests for prioritization to each
Secretariat (EOPSS in this case). After EOPSS‟s review, OFM evaluates all requests and determines which repairs
can be funded. Annually, OFM has had a total budget of $30 million to be allocated for all State deferred
maintenance, although this amount can vary from year to year. Of this annual budget, the amounts delegated to the
DOC and Sheriffs also varies from year to year; in 2009, $3.1 million was delegated to Sheriffs; in 2010, $974,000
was delegated to Sheriffs and $2.6 million to the DOC. These allocations can have only minimal impact on the
deferred maintenance for over 10 million square feet of space.
According to CAMIS, the potential need of funding for repairs projects is estimated at well over $1 billion. In order to
meet the needs in 2020, it is clear that more repairs and improvements to existing facilities (beyond the OFM budget)
- 56 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Existing Facility Improvements & Repairs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Existing Facility Improvement & Repairs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 2

must be funded from the $550 million authorization (Chapter 304 of Acts of 2008) as part of the CMP in addition to
adding more bedspaces. Although some Sheriffs are still new to CAMIS, it will be critical for all agencies to utilize
CAMIS in order to provide an ongoing assessment of deferred maintenance requests to be considered for funding
each year. Potential capacity improvements as discussed throughout the CMP will also be funded in this
authorization.

CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZING DEFERRED MAINTENANCE REQUESTS
Even with an incomplete list of requests, the value of deferred maintenance requests in the system today greatly
exceeds the funding available. Criteria to prioritize requests will be critical.
Expanding DCAM‟s Office of Facility Maintenance (OFM) current practices for prioritizing deferred maintenance
projects for funding, the criteria presented below will be considered for repairs and improvements to be funded from
the CMP authorization. Based on the submitted requests to CAMIS by Sheriffs and the DOC and considering what is
already funded through the OFM process, DCAM will review with EOPSS and ANF and will evaluate and prioritize
requests while consulting with the DOC and Sheriff Departments in the development of annual capital spending
plans. The following criteria are not presented in any order of relative importance and will all be considered in the
compilation of spending plans each year.
A.) Health/Life Safety
Does the deficiency pose a health or life safety risk to occupants and visitors?
 Dangerous problems or deficiencies to fire protection or security systems, including the exterior security
perimeter and sally port security.
 Immediate and dangerous structural, building envelope, or MEP conditions
 Egress issues
 Circumstances that facilitate rape or suicide. Refer to PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) and Hayes
Report (suicide prevention recommendations).
 Immediate, verified health risks associated with mold, toxins, asbestos
 Emergency equipment (back-up systems, generators, etc.) that is not fully functional
B.) Preservation of Property
Should a deficiency go unaddressed, will there be an impact to the preservation of the property?
 Building envelope deficiencies that unrepaired will cause further damage
 Building systems deficiencies – leaks, lack of heat, etc.
C.) Time- sensitive Repairs
Are there schedule-sensitive issues such as weather-dependent work, or supplemental funding that is due to expire?
 Repairs that must be done within a certain time frame to be cost-effective or as part of other funding
deadlines
D.) Potential for Further Liability
This category includes urgent corrective action mandated by regulatory authority, executive order, statute, building
code, court order, litigation, that could pose additional liability to the Commonwealth or the Agency if not carried out.
 Compliance with State building code, including ventilation, occupancy, energy and accessibility code
requirements
 Compliance with 103 CMR code related to corrections facilities
- 57 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Existing Facility Improvements & Repairs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Existing Facility Improvement & Repairs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 2




Civil rights compliance including accessibility requirements
Citations of noncompliance that impact health and life safety

E.) Alignment with CMP Goals and Future Plans
Does the request align the goals of the CMP or other programmatic or system-wide goals for the long-range plan for
this site?
 Repairs to advance CMP recommendations
 Repairs not in conflict with future plans or not planned as part of a larger project
 Repairs or improvements to provide access to programs and services in addition to accessible cells and
plumbing fixtures
F.) Energy and Carbon Footprint Goals
Does the request advance the objectives of Executive Order 484 by increasing energy efficiency, implementing
renewable energy technology, and/or reducing the facility carbon footprint?
 Energy efficiency measures
G.) Operating Costs
Does the project lower operating costs or create other operating efficiencies?
 Reconfigurations that promote efficiencies
H.) Cost Benefit
Does the cost of repairs align with the potential benefit? Does the cost approach replacement cost? This would
define projects that arise when an existing building requires such a magnitude of repairs investment that it would
make an investment unwise.
 Cost-effective benefit when considering life span of predicted use
I.) Appropriate Use of CMP Capital
Is the request an appropriate use of CMP capital dollars? Should this request be covered by the facility‟s operating
budget? Is this request the result of gross neglect by the facility?
 Repairs beyond the reasonable scope of operating budgets
 Repairs that cannot be resolved in a less costly manner
J.) OFM Allocation
Did this facility receive OFM annual funds?
 Criteria to assure fair and appropriate distribution of funds and repairs throughout the system

POTENTIAL CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS
Increasing bedspace capacity in existing facilities will be a critical component to addressing overcrowding and
meeting the 2020 bedspace needs. As discussed in Chapter 1, potential capacity improvements have been identified
and will be implemented in phases as a part of the CMP and annual spending plans. Where other projects are being
considered at a particular facility, these improvements may be added to their scope. In addition to the addition of
plumbing fixtures, support spaces must also be assessed prior to increasing bedspace capacity.

- 58 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Existing Facility Improvements & Repairs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Existing Facility Improvement & Repairs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 2

SIGNIFICANT CONDITION ISSUES
A list of each facility‟s capital requests and deferred maintenance needs can be found in Appendices A and B.
Significant conditions worth noting specifically are included below.
Oldest Facilities
Although age alone does not determine the usefulness or even the condition of a facility, there are several facilities
that were built in the 1800‟s well before there were modern life safety codes. In some cases, non-compliancy issues
can only be addressed by reprogramming and total renovations. Strategic planning is required beyond immediate
deferred maintenance needs in order to provide long-term solutions. These facilities include:


Bristol County Ash Street Jail: 74 CMP Capacity; (212 current beds)
Due to dayroom space limiting capacity (provided in a repurposed gym in a building separate from the
housing unit) and the configuration and condition of this very old facility, any long term capital investment is
not recommended. However, continued use is required until CMP investments can be implemented.



Dukes County Jail and HOC: 26 CMP Capacity; (38current beds)
Its location on the island is critical for access to courts and lockup. However, the unique nature of the
limited resources on the island suggest that a solution for the jail may be best developed as part of a
combined Public Safety complex including other criminal justice agencies.



MCI Framingham: 400 CMP Capacity; 432 Potential Capacity; (696 Current Beds)
A critical women’s facility in the Correction System that requires a comprehensive planning study to assess
potential expansion and improvements (discussed in Chapter 5).

Middlesex Jail in Cambridge
Currently the only occupant of the high rise structure in Cambridge, the Middlesex Jail requires an operating budget
for an entire building of which only a small portion is operational. Decommissioning and replacement of these
bedspaces in the Central Region as soon as possible is a critical priority that can be implemented with the
construction of a new multi-jurisdictional facility and improvements to the Middlesex HOC in Billerica, both of which
are currently planned.
Wood Modular Buildings
Wood modular buildings were built as temporary structures at many DOC and Sheriff campuses. Most were erected
in the 1980‟s, are past their expected life span and were meant for a variety of purposes: Dorm-style housing,
medium-security housing, inmate library, or administrative offices. Some have been abandoned, and those still in use
require constant repairs to remain functional. As the CMP is implemented, these facilities should be individually
considered for repairs, replacements or decommissioning. These structures have been summarized in Appendix D.

REFERENCE SOURCES FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
In addition to discussions throughout the CMP Chapters, there are several sources of building condition information:
Facility Briefs: Appendices A and B
This section of the Master Plan document provides a summary of the conditions at each facility. It includes a site
plan, building areas, building age, program, major facility issues, CMP Capacity spreadsheet, and CAMIS data on

- 59 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Existing Facility Improvements & Repairs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management

Existing Facility Improvement & Repairs

Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Chapter 2

repair requests and equipment condition in the system as of December 2010. Only requests entered into CAMIS
were included. Future requests must be entered into CAMIS to be considered for funding.
Site Visit Reports and Facility Self-assessments: DCAM
In the Spring of 2008, teams comprised of DCAM, agency, and consultant staff conducted on-site assessments of all
existing Sheriffs‟ and DOC correctional facilities. The goal of the site visits was to obtain and document a general
perspective of facility conditions and to determine the “as is” physical condition of corrections in the Commonwealth.
In addition to these on-site assessments, each facility conducted a self-assessment of facility and program
conditions. DCAM also visited each Sheriff‟s department to discuss facility needs with Sheriffs‟ staff. The selfassessment is included in each site visit report. DCAM maintains copies of these reports and has provided copies to
the DOC and Sheriff Departments.
Department of Corrections Compliance Audits of Sheriff Facilities – FY2010: DCAM
The DOC Compliance Unit reviews Sheriff facilities on a regular basis and completes audits.
Accessibility Analysis: DCAM
Based on data provided by DOC, DCAM is developing a means to assist in indentifying ADA compliance strategies.

- 60 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Existing Facility Improvements & Repairs - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan
The Final Report

Chapter 3
Opportunities to Reduce
Incarceration Needs

Chapter 3 Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration Needs
Unlike Alabama, Florida, Texas, and California, Massachusetts has avoided large scale intervention by the federal
courts in establishing mandatory conditions of confinement by responding to incarceration needs through extensive
capital programs since 1980. Of the more than 40 facilities evaluated during the CMP, over half have opened since
1980 and most of those since 1990. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth faces an expenditure estimated at more than
$1.0 billion for deferred maintenance to existing facilities, in addition to accommodating the anticipated growth in the
population as discussed in Chapter 1.
In Chapter 1 of this report a prediction of the future level of incarceration for the DOC and Sheriffs was estimated at
approximately 24,425 inmates (requiring approximately 27,000 bedspaces) excluding civil commitments. With civil
commitments, the 2020 ADP is estimated to grow to approximately 25,100, compared to the 2009 ADP of approx.
24,000 inmates, detainees and civil commitments. This represents an increase of approximately 2,000 inmates and
detainees as the 2009 ADP includes over 1,000 federal and out-of-state inmates currently held in Sheriff facilities
which are not included in the 2020 projection. While analytical models were used to predict the future population, this
estimate, like all predictions, is less science than an assumption based upon past trends.
With the capital expenditure authority centralized in the Commonwealth, there is an opportunity to maximize
resources, avoid duplicative expenditures, and create a more efficient correctional system. Chapter 3 explores the
existing roles of Sheriff and DOC agencies for incarceration and outlines the basic framework for altering traditional
roles to reduce the financial burden of incarceration for the citizens of the Commonwealth.

ROLES FOR INCARCERATION
The CMP does not recommend altering the fundamental incarceration responsibilities of the DOC and Sheriffs but
rather seeks to optimize current roles and create more flexibility within the system.
Technically, all pretrial offenders are the responsibility of the sheriffs. Sentenced inmates are separated between the
Sheriffs and DOC based on length of sentence. A sentence length of 30 months or less is typically served in Sheriff
facilities with longer sentences served in DOC facilities. While 80% of the states draw that line at 12 months or less,
with the exception of Tennessee, Sheriffs in Massachusetts incarcerate sentenced inmates longer than any other
- 61 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration Needs DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration Needs – The Final Report

Chapter 3

state. Arguments can be made as to whether the offender‟s proclivity for recidivism is reduced through the service of
a sentence in a Sheriff or DOC facility, but the issue remains that a duplication of responsibilities occurs between the
Sheriffs‟ Houses of Correction and the DOC facilities.
During the last decade, the lines of responsibility between the Sheriffs and DOC have become less rigid in response
to crowding, sentencing changes, and budgetary constraints. This has resulted in further duplication of
responsibilities with the incarceration of county sentenced and awaiting trial women as well as Section 52A‟s now
being housed in DOC facilities.
In 2009, the DOC had an ADP (Average Daily Population) of 11,300 inmates and detainees which was mostly male
sentenced inmates. However, the population also included 628 civil commitments, 285 Section 52A detainees (those
pretrial offenders that have previously been incarcerated by DOC) and 430 county sentenced and awaiting trial
women. In 2009, the Sheriffs‟ combined ADP was 12,750 inmates and detainees in Jails and Houses of Correction,
including approximately 500 federal and out-of-state inmates.
The CMP has provided the opportunity to propose a broad range of system improvement ideas to be considered as
the Commonwealth evaluates an increasing expenditure for capital improvement and operating expenses due to
population increases, aging facilities and changing population needs.
The goal of the CMP is to seek and promote system solutions and to move away from the traditional “silo”
approaches to sustaining the correctional component of the criminal justice system. The possible solutions represent
a departure from current practices in some cases, and may therefore meet with some resistance. Nonetheless, the
Commonwealth must examine, like all responsible jurisdictions, more cost effective means in order to maintain a
sustainable system of delivering services. The broad categories of responsibility for correctional sanctions are
discussed as follows.
Pre-Arraignment
The point of incarceration typically begins in one of the 351 municipalities in the Commonwealth through either an
arrest or service of a warrant. Currently the arrestee is taken to one of the 100 local lock-up facilities associated with
local or state law enforcement. Based upon time-sensitive proceedings that occur over the next 72 hours, the
arrestee is either released or transferred to a county-operated facility.
In total, approximately 140 (100 local lock-ups; 41 county and DOC-operated) places of incarceration exist in the
Commonwealth. While the operation of the municipal lock-ups is the financial responsibility of the local (or State
Police) jurisdiction, the link to the Commonwealth‟s criminal justice system is through the Counties. Duplication of
efforts with intake, the quality of these facilities for overnight stays, supervision by a law enforcement officer instead
of a corrections officer, transportation expenses, and lack of centralized pre-trial diversion programs are all issues
that need to be addressed.
Important steps toward a more integrated and efficient incarceration system in the long term require consideration of
an integrated Criminal Justice Information System, expansion of video arraignments, means to reduce awaiting
arraignment stays in lockups, and the establishment of a centralized Office of Pre-trial Services to oversee prearraignment functions and to foster the development and implementation of alternatives to incarceration programs
statewide.
Over time, pre-arraignment responsibilities should be transferred to existing County pre-trial facilities where there is
capacity or when the expansion of existing facilities to provide regional lockup capacity can be considered as part of
renovations to existing facilities. The focus of the shift to professionally operated county facilities will permit a greater
- 62 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration Needs DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration Needs – The Final Report

Chapter 3

use of intervention programs that divert as many as possible from pre-trial incarceration through established pre-trial
intervention programs.
Additional staff funding for both the county jails and local probation and parole supervisory services may be
necessary to assure a coordinated approach to incarceration programs.
Sheriffs: After reviewing the current roles, structure, and operation of the correctional system in Massachusetts, the
CMP recommends that the Sheriffs remain responsible for pretrial detainees which will include detainees currently
committed to the DOC under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 1276, § 52A, as well as female detainees housed at MCI
Framingham. This requires the transfer of Section 52A detainees and, where possible, county women housed in the
DOC to Sheriff facilities.
With ties to their communities, the Sheriffs are best suited to transition inmates back into the community with prerelease and re-entry programming than the DOC. This type of programming reduces recidivism and has great benefit
for all concerned. Therefore, the CMP recommends the eventual transfer or stepping down of DOC inmates within
the last 6-12 months of their sentence to the Sheriff facility most closely located to their community of origin.
The clear focus of Sheriffs should be the detention of pre-trial defendants and the preparation of pre-release inmates
for their return to the community. The CMP recommends investment in Pre-Release facilities run by Sheriffs to
handle the influx of DOC pre-release inmates in addition to the Sheriffs‟ current pre-release inmate populations. By
relocating pre-release inmates to these new beds, capacity within existing facilities will be available for the remaining
sentenced inmates.
In order to create more flexibility into the system, a multi-jurisdictional approach is recommended to provide
additional capacity to address overcrowding in Sheriff and DOC facilities. The governance structure of this type of
facility must be developed between ANF, EOPSS, DOC, and the Sheriffs. As a new governance structure is
developed, legislation should be proposed to formalize the relationships and structure to ensure that collaboration is
integral to the system.
The DOC: The Department of Correction will continue to focus on safely and securely managing felons who receive
a sentence greater than 30 months from the Commonwealth‟s courts. Although the CMP recommends continued
initiatives to relocate the care and custody of at least some of the civilly committed (mentally ill and substance abuse)
populations to the Department of Mental Health and/or the Department of Public Health, these populations are
projected and disaggregated to understand the impact on bedspaces should they remain the DOC‟s responsibility.
Beyond housing inmates convicted of felonies, the CMP recommends that the DOC should remain responsible for
the administration of Medical and Mental Health facilities to handle acute and chronic illnesses when appropriate
throughout the system. Any new long-term medical and mental health care facilities arising from the CMP should be
administered by the DOC and should serve both DOC and Sheriff sub-acute medical and mental health needs on a
regional basis. DOC should continue to provide security at a DPH or private hospital for acute care needs.
As previously stated, the CMP recommends the transfer of DOC inmates in the last 6-12 months of their sentence to
appropriate Sheriff facilities for pre-release and re-entry programs. This will require negotiation of clear protocols and
evaluation of inmates for transfer. In some select cases, DOC will be best suited to provide pre-release programming.
Community Corrections: Nationwide, every successful program that has actually reduced the reliance on
incarceration is characterized by a comprehensive “continuum of care” program. To this end the Governor has
proposed legislation to centralize community supervision of offenders in a unified agency within the Executive
- 63 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration Needs DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration Needs – The Final Report

Chapter 3

Branch. This agency, the Department of Re-entry and Community Supervision (DRCS) would be responsible for
supervising defendants from the early pretrial stages of the criminal process through re-entry to the community after
incarceration.

THE BASIS FOR ELIMINATING BARRIERS TO SYSTEM EFFICIENCY
Legislative mandates, such as mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug and violent offenses that are set forth
in the Massachusetts General Laws (“General Laws”) should be reviewed based upon the value that accrues to the
criminal justice system through their application. Other mandates are set out in Code of Massachusetts (CMR)
regulations, or Department of Correction policies, each of which sets out a process for their revision, and both of
which are less complicated than amending or enacting a new statute. Still other requirements are laid out in State
and Federal Court decrees, and would involve approval of the Courts to facilitate change. Finally, several practices,
which though not required legally, are so entrenched as to have taken on a legal “aura” and are followed largely
either because no appropriate alternatives exists or merely out of habit. In Appendix C, many of these statutes,
regulations, and/or policies that are barriers to better coordination are discussed.
Existing laws, regulations, and policies serve both as “drivers” of the incarcerated population as well as barriers to
more effective resource sharing. The specific legal barriers that constrain the ability of the Courts, the Commissioner
of the DOC, and the Sheriffs to manage the correctional system in a manner that will maximize public safety,
increase efficiency, and respond to the multiple and complex needs of the inmates and detainees in custody can be
divided into several broad areas:
1. Sentencing restrictions which require judges to assign mandatory minimum sentences to certain offenses;
2. Statutes and policies that limit effective reentry planning by restricting the “stepping down” or transitioning
from higher to lower security levels, or which restrict access to minimum/prerelease/work release status;
3. Legal requirements that call for the separation of certain populations;
4. Statutes which allow for civil commitments of certain populations to the Department of Correction for clinical
evaluation and/or treatment;
5. Legal impediments to the ability of the Courts, the Commissioner of the DOC or the Sheriffs to house and
place inmates in Sheriff or DOC facilities or programs they deem appropriate to meet the inmates‟ needs
while protecting public safety;
6. Legal or regulatory requirements that prohibit the release of terminally ill inmates to community corrections;
7. Lack of statutes or practices which could reduce the numbers and lengths of stay of pre-trial detainees held
in the Commonwealth‟s lock-ups and jails; and;
8. Statutes and practices which result in an inefficient and outdated pre-arraignment process.
The single greatest “driver” of prison population is the implementation of sentencing policy while the greatest barriers
to a more efficient correctional system are the policies that define how a correctional system can be operated. To
become a more efficient system, all of the existing “drivers” and barriers should be reviewed in light of the impact
they have upon the reduction of recidivism and enhancement of public safety.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR A MORE EFFICIENT SYSTEM
The eight types of barriers mentioned above are by no means the sum of all obstacles to a more efficient system, but
represent the ones that have the greatest impact on the number and placement of inmates in the system. Well
beyond these predominantly legal and regulatory barriers are policies and procedures that have been developed over
- 64 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration Needs DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration Needs – The Final Report

Chapter 3

many years of operating parallel, but separate DOC and county systems. Elimination of policy and procedural
barriers is more challenging in that sometimes these are unique to a particular facility, individual, or tradition.
In Appendix C, seven legal and regulatory barriers are explained in some depth. An eighth barrier addressing the
inability to release end-stage, terminally ill inmates to community supervision has been added to these other major
barriers to a more efficient correctional system. As the Commonwealth progresses towards eliminating as many of
the obstacles as possible, some attention should be given to these eight major issues. The following is a recapping
what is required to eliminate, or mitigate, these barriers with a recognition that more must be done at the local
operating level to eliminate policies and procedures that prevent a more integrated approach to corrections.
1. Sentencing restrictions which require judges to assign mandatory minimum sentences to certain
offenses. The Final Report of the Governor‟s Commission on Correction Reform (the “Harshbarger
Commission”) (2004), stated that minimum mandatory sentences constrain reentry preparation as they
essentially preclude participation in parole supervision. The Harshbarger Commission strongly supported
the recommendations of the Governor‟s Commission on Criminal Justice Innovation (2002), for sentencing
reforms to enhance offender reentry.
Chapter 256 of the Acts of 2010 included sentencing reform that provides some relief to mandatory
minimum sentences for certain drug offenses, barring certain aggravating circumstances, for inmates
sentenced to a House of Corrections. While some House of Correction inmates could be eligible for parole
after serving half of the maximum term of their sentence, inmates serving sentences in State prisons would
not be eligible. Additionally, a condition of parole may be enhanced supervision and may include the use of
electronic bracelets. This reform could have a major impact on how long inmates are incarcerated and,
thus, the average daily population and the bedspace projections. The potential reduction in recidivism with
increased re-entry programming would have a long term impact on the growth of the incarcerated
population in Massachusetts.
The Governor filed legislation in early 2011 (House Bill No. 40) that would extend the parole eligibility made
available to House of Correction inmates, as described above, to DOC inmates. In addition, the Governor
proposed eliminating mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes that do not involve guns or children,
but at the same time proposed tougher sentencing laws for repeat violent offenders.
2. Statutes and policies that limit effective reentry planning by restricting the “stepping down” or
transitioning out of higher to lower security levels, or which restrict access to
minimum/prerelease/work release status. The inability to become parole-eligible, coupled with restrictions
on inmates‟ “stepping down” from higher to lower security as their behavior warrants, has created a situation
in which inmates are getting released directly from higher custody settings with no preparation or formal
supervision in the community through parole. The Massachusetts Sentencing Commission and several
other task forces and special commissions have uniformly recommended sentencing reform to address
some of these issues.
Chapter 256 of Acts of 2010 includes a provision that allows both House of Correction and State prison
drug offenders‟ eligibility for education, training, and employment programs upon approval by the
Commissioner of Corrections or based on a recommendation of the correctional institution administrator,
Warden, or Sheriff, notwithstanding a mandatory minimum sentence. The Governor‟s 2011 legislative
proposal would extend this provision to include work release programs outside of prison facilities. This type
of provision will improve public safety and better define roles of the DOC and counties in pre-release
services. The impact on bedspace needs should these initiatives succeed is similar to those described
above.
- 65 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration Needs DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration Needs – The Final Report

Chapter 3

3. Legal requirements that require the separation of certain populations. Enacted in 1817, and last
amended in 1902, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 127, § 22 states that, “[m]ale and female prisoners shall not be put
or kept in the same room in a jail or house of correction [Emphasis added]. A literal reading of this section
may limit the co-location of housing men and women, and scheduled sharing of common areas, such as
dining rooms, medical waiting areas, day rooms, outdoor recreation space, and gyms, or restricting men and
women from attending programs or waiting for clinical appointments in the same areas at the same time.
The law regarding housing pretrial and sentenced inmates together has not been amended since 1902.
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 127, § 22 states that, “[p]ersons committed on charge of crime shall not be confined
with convicts.” [Emphasis added]. Similar objective criteria should be used for decisions regarding the
housing of pre-trial and sentenced populations and while an inmate‟s legal status may be one indicator in a
classification determination, the adjudication status need not be the sole basis for physical separation. A
review of the historical bases for these “separation” statutes in Massachusetts is warranted so that the
duplication of unnecessary spaces and programs could be eliminated.
4. Statutes and practices which allow for civil commitments of certain populations to the Department
of Correction for clinical evaluation and/or treatment. Various commissions and task forces have
questioned the propriety of civilly committing men and women to the prison system for evaluation and
treatment of substance abuse and mental illness. The status of civilly committed sex offenders is
complicated by a long and complex history of Federal and State Court oversight. A review of the clinical and
security needs of these populations and a potential transfer of responsibility for some, or all, from the
Department of Correction to the Departments of Public Health and Mental Health is critical to the reduction
of the inmate population by more than 600 inmates and a more effective correctional system.
5. Legal impediments to the ability of the Courts, the Commissioner of Correction or the Sheriffs to
house and place inmates in Sheriff or DOC facilities or programs deemed appropriate to meet the
inmates‟ needs while protecting public safety. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 279, § 23 allows Courts to sentence
offenders to DOC for “12 months or more” and limits the maximum sentence of male offenders to a jail or
house of correction to two and one half years. General Laws, chapter 274; section 1, states that, “a crime
punishable by…imprisonment in the state prison is a felony. All other crimes are misdemeanors”. The
implication of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 279, § 23 is that misdemeanant offenders would be kept as close as
feasible to the committing community. However, in most states, a sentence of more than 12 months is an
indicator of a more serious offense that triggers an assignment to a state facility. Any change in sentencing
that would have misdemeanants made into felons just to achieve a more typical and rational split between
the responsibilities of the DOC and Sheriffs‟ correctional systems would be counter-productive to the CMP.
A Supreme Judicial Court case out of Middlesex County supports a position that authorizes Sheriffs to set
appropriate conditions of confinement for House of Correction inmates, subject to mandatory sentences and
other legislative restrictions. Commonwealth v. MacDougall, 447 Mass. 505, 852 N.E.2d 1080 (2006))
suggests inmate transfers can be done among and between DOC and Sheriffs which promotes a concept of
a more interaction on matching an appropriate environment with the needs of an inmate.
6. Legal or regulatory impediments to the release of end-state inmates to the responsibility of
community corrections. Massachusetts has no express legal authority for the “compassionate release” of
terminally ill or infirm inmates. The Governor‟s 2011 legislative proposal included a provision that would
permit the Commissioner of Correction to release terminally ill inmates who are so infirm that they no longer
pose a danger to others. This release would potentially allow inmates to receive federally subsidized
medical treatments when not constituting a threat to public safety. With an aging incarcerated population,
sub-acute chronic conditions are increasing and exasperating the already stretched system.

- 66 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration Needs DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration Needs – The Final Report

Chapter 3

7. Lack of statutes or practices which could reduce the numbers and lengths of stay of pre-trial
detainees held in the Commonwealth‟s lock-ups and jails. While the Probation Department has pre-trial
supervision responsibilities, Massachusetts has no centralized pre-trial authority to set standards and create
programs to divert non-violent offenders from being detained prior to trial which has resulted in
proportionately more inmates detained while awaiting trial. No legal or regulatory barriers to establishing
standards for programs currently exist. The feasibility of establishing a centralized pre-trial authority should
be explored in order to uniformly and more effectively provide alternatives to incarceration for larger
numbers of pre-trial detainees.
Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 127, § 20B, inserted by Chapter 256 of Acts of 2010, the Sheriffs and the
Commissioner of Correction in the case of women detained at MCI Framingham, subject to rules and
regulations, may permit a pretrial detainee being held for certain offenses to be classified to a pretrial
diversion program operated by a Sheriff where the court that committed the detainee is sitting. The Sheriff
may extend the limits of the place of confinement of a detainee for the purpose of participation in this
program and shall establish a classification system to determine the suitability of detainees who may be
potential participants.
This legislation also included the requirement that the DOC, in consultation with DPH conduct a study on
the establishment of jail diversion programs for non-violent low-level offenders with substance abuse
disorders. Additionally, a study to examine the bail review process by the administrative office of the trial
court is also required. These provisions can potentially reduce the pretrial incarcerated populations.
8. Statutes and practices which result in an inefficient and outdated pre-arraignment process. The
existing statutes, such as Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40, § 36B, address state how frequently a cell within a
lockup facility should be checked by a law enforcement officer, the General Laws do not address condition
of confinement issues, or clearly distinguish responsibilities between municipal and county governments for
pre-arraignment detainees. A review of the legal basis and conditions for pre-arraignment incarceration and
bail practices should be undertaken to assess the desirability and feasibility of adopting a more efficient and
seamless pre-arraignment process. In particular, policies of the Court that prevent the use of video
appearances should be given a high priority for review and modification.
The CMP strongly urges the re-alignment with the current best practices and the elimination of legal, regulatory, and
policy-driven impediments to achieving a more integrated, cost-effective and efficient correctional system.
The newly enacted legislation outlined above was passed during the final stages of this Corrections Master Plan
documentation. At this stage of planning the impact of this legislation has not been factored into the estimates of
future bedspace needs. However, the CMP recommendations that the first new bedspaces focus on pre-release are
consistent with this legislation. Since the CMP recommends a phased implementation strategy, the opportunity to
accommodate bedspace reductions that might result from the implementation of the legislation and future legislation
remains.

A MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL APPROACH TO FUNDING THE NEED
An aim of the CMP was to propose opportunities to create a more cost-effective, flexible and integrated system as
the basis for determining capital expenditure. After numerous workshops and presentations it was determined that
the starting point for this process will involve only minor revisions to responsibilities with respect to pretrial detainees
and pre-release / re-entry inmates. However, the CMP does recommend a different approach to the types of new
capital projects that should be funded. In large part, new bedspace growth beyond the newly created definition of
- 67 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration Needs DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration Needs – The Final Report

Chapter 3

capacity will be accommodated on a multi-jurisdictional or regional basis. This can be a combination of multijurisdictional general custody facilities or facilities geared to specific special populations that can result in creating
additional general custody bedspaces within existing facilities. Multi-jurisdictional facilities will create more flexibility
within the system and special population facilities such as a long term care facility can create efficiencies by
consolidating inmates requiring more care and eliminating these special demands from a general custody facility.
Consensus on the overarching recommendation has not been reached and will require legislative and executive
support.
At the base of the CMP is recognition that capital funding should be viewed in the context of the most served for the
least expenditure, in contrast to the traditional model of funding each jurisdiction individually. This does not imply that
individual needs will not be addressed, but that especially in the case of counties, the first inclination for funding will
be towards those needs that can be met more efficiently through a shared solution. With limited funding available and
consolidated for the DOC and Sheriffs, a multi-jurisdictional approach to meeting the needs can meet the needs of
the system as a whole more effectively. Future chapters of this report address specific recommendations focused on
the subtle realignment of responsibilities, the provision of resources for special populations in a way to make the
delivery of services more efficient and cost effective, and the implementation of multi-jurisdictional facilities to create
more flexibility in the system.
For the purpose of the CMP, the Commonwealth has been organized into the four service regions previously outlined
in Chapter 1 and illustrated in Figure 1-1, grouped as follows:
1. Region 1 - Northeast: Essex and Suffolk Counties
2. Region 2 – Central: Middlesex, Norfolk, and Worcester Counties
3. Region 3 – Southeast: Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, and Plymouth Counties
4. Region 4 – West: Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire Counties
The proposed regions are based on geography and are not necessarily existing alliances. While the regional
groupings are proposed to address resource sharing opportunities between Sheriffs, these regions may also serve to
establish a more effective means of addressing the interface between DOC services, programs, and facilities with
those of the Sheriffs.

- 68 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Opportunities to Reduce Incarceration Needs DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan
The Final Report

Chapter 4
Master Plan Alternative Strategy
Options

Chapter 4 Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options
In the course of this study, several development options were considered to meet the needs of the Corrections
System in 2020.In the end, these options proved to be more similar than different, sharing some components and not
others. Instead of focusing on specifics of any or all of the bundled options considered, this Chapter outlines Strategy
Options by topic that were instrumental in the development of the Commonwealth’s 2020 Corrections Master Plan
and briefly describes the recommended option that is more fully described in Chapter 5.

CMP GOALS
Through a process that included numerous stakeholder meetings and input, several overarching goals were
identified. These goals were used to evaluate alternative strategies. As these goals can run counter to each other at
times, considering priorities in each topic was critical in the development of the Strategic Capital Plan.
1. Alleviate crowding.
Overcrowding is an ongoing concern today that will only be exasperated by anticipated growth of the
incarcerated population. A clear strategy on how the Commonwealth can begin to alleviate overcrowding in
a consistent manner across the Commonwealth must be a focus of the Strategic Capital Plan.
2. Reduce recidivism.
Rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders back into the community is critical to public safety. Disrupting
the cycle of incarceration as well as the victimization of the Massachusetts residents can most effectively
be achieved by providing facilities and programs that provide support services and prepare inmates for a
new life in the community.
3. Maximize existing resources.
With limited funding, identifying the best use of existing facilities and identifying what entity is best suited for
particular functions within the existing system is required to maximize and expand existing resources.
4. Create a more integrated, efficient and cost effective Corrections System.

- 69 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options – The Final Report

Chapter 4

With the transition to a single funding source, the creation of a more efficient and effective system is
possible and critical to enabling Massachusetts to address the challenges moving forward. By considering
the system as a whole and establishing more resource-sharing and less duplication, a more integrated,
flexible, and effective system with potential cost-savings can be realized.
Master planning must accommodate change. Many steps and decisions will be taken over the course of time based
on changing circumstances such as legislative initiatives, population growth, and funding resources. In fact, the
greatest impact on the capital cost of meeting the bedspace needs in the Commonwealth will be the decisions that
are reached far beyond the scope of this capital plan. For example, a change in sentencing practices and the
approach to non-violent offenders could alter the bedspace needs dramatically and reduce the required capital
investment by tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars.
To assist in evaluating and identifying a preferred strategy in terms of its impact on creating a more efficient and
integrated system, a series of questions were posed to focus the debate.
1. Which strategies offer the Commonwealth the most effective basis for offender management?
While existing statutes should not be ignored, neither should the assignment of offender management
responsibility be limited to existing traditions. The focus of offender management should be upon the entity
of government that offers the best opportunity for preparing the offender to re-enter the community with a
significantly diminished likelihood for re-offending.
2. Which strategies most effectively maximize existing resources while meeting the requirements of
public safety and offender rehabilitation?
More than 40 correctional facilities currently exist in the Commonwealth. While crowding exists in the
majority of existing facilities, the provision of future bedspaces to reduce crowding and accommodate
growth should be based upon the maximization of existing bedspaces and the provision of future bedspaces
in the least costly manner.
3. Which strategies provide the best opportunity for the elimination of duplicative services and
facilities?
The Sheriffs and the DOC have similar requirements for maintaining public safety and the care and custody
of inmates. However, at the present time, each provides these services and facilities with a traditional
definition of jurisdictional responsibilities that result in a high degree of duplicative services and facilities.
Due to the financial relationship between the Commonwealth and the Sheriffs, the elimination of duplicative
services and facilities could be more easily accomplished than in many states.
4. Which strategies provide the greater value for money?
Leaving aside traditional role assignments and addressing the issue of the greatest possible return for the
public dollar and trust, the evaluation of options should consider which option provides the greatest degree
of public safety; the greatest potential for reducing recidivism; and the best opportunity for the duplication of
services at the lowest total cost.

- 70 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options – The Final Report

Chapter 4

STRATEGY OPTIONS OVERVIEW
Currently, except for inter-governmental agreements between certain Sheriffs and the DOC, the two systems share
very little. Exceptions include DOC‟s care of female offenders, male Section 52A pretrial detainees, mentally ill,
and/or “safe-keep” inmates.
As previously discussed, Sheriffs are responsible for pretrial offenders and house offenders with a sentence of 30
months or less (except those which send pretrial and sentenced women to MCI Framingham). The DOC houses
prisoners with sentences of more than 30 months in addition to civil commitments and operates correctional facilities
in 5 of the counties with various missions and classification levels. In general, Sheriffs‟ facilities tend to be designed
to accommodate a broad range of security requirements as pretrial offender‟s historical behavioral information is
often unknown and sentenced inmates range in custody levels. The DOC, with the advantage of the adjudication
process (committing offense) and a longer anticipated length of stay, operates facilities of differing security levels that
range in both operational and capital costs.
The Sheriffs receive capital and operational funding through the Commonwealth for correctional operations and, with
limited exceptions, receive no county funds for local correctional operations. Some Sheriffs accept funding from the
Department of Homeland Security for housing illegal immigrants and one county accepts funding for holding out-ofstate inmates. These funds tend to remain with the local sheriffs‟ departments to support and sustain various
programs. At the time of this study, approximately 900 federal inmates were being held in Sheriff facilities. While
supplementing operating budgets, federal inmates consume bedspaces that could alleviate overcrowding within the
Commonwealth‟s Corrections System.
Because correctional funding for the DOC and Sheriffs is, in large part, from a single source, every opportunity to
streamline the system to provide better programs in the most cost-effective manner should be made. System-wide
configurations that may have previously not been feasible due to separate funding should now be considered. These
configurations could include resource- sharing agreements, regional multi-jurisdictional facilities, shared facilities and
programs for special populations, and more aggressive stepping down of DOC inmates into Sheriff facilities and reentry programs.
From the stakeholder process, challenges were identified that helped inform the recommended approach to the
CMP. The CMP addresses the 10 topics in the following three broad groupings, two groupings focus on bedspaces
and one grouping is more service-oriented:
General Custody - Male
o Male Pretrial / Section 52A‟s
o General Population Male Offenders
Special Populations
o Pre-Release
o Women – Pretrial and Sentenced
o Medical
o Mental Health
Support Services
o Pre-incarceration / Pre-Arraignment
o Technology
o Transportation
- 71 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options – The Final Report

Chapter 4

GENERAL CUSTODY – MALE
For the purposes of the CMP, General Custody bedspaces include male pretrial detainees and male sentenced
inmates who are not eligible for pre-release or in need of sub-acute medical or mental health long-term care.
Male Pretrial
As previously stated, Sheriffs have the sole responsibility to house pre-trial detainees. Pretrial detainees have
different needs than sentenced inmates, sometimes requiring stabilization, and urgent medical and mental health
services. Additionally, they can have short stays. Located close to courts within their communities, Sheriff facilities
provide easy access for court proceedings and families of detainees. Currently male detainees are held in Sheriff
facilities with the exception of Section 52A‟s. CMP strategy options focused only on Section 52A‟s.
Section 52A detainees are offenders who have been previously incarcerated under a felony sentence in DOC
facilities. As outlined in Massachusetts General Law, Part IV., Title II, Chapter 276, Section 52A, the DOC
Commissioner is granted authority to relocate these detainees from jails to correctional institutions, with the approval
of the district attorney. Likewise, these detainees can be returned to jails for proceedings. The cost of support of
these detainees is to be paid by the Sheriff‟s jurisdiction of their committing offense. In practice, this has resulted in
DOC taking the primary responsibility for these detainees, either housing them or making arrangements with other
Sheriffs to house them.
As averaged from 2006 through 2009, the originating counties for the majority of 52A‟s were Suffolk County (57%,),
Middlesex County (32%) and Worcester (8%). The remaining 3% come from Bristol, Norfolk, Plymouth, and other
counties to lesser degrees. In addition to DOC facilities, some of these detainees are held at Plymouth County Sheriff
facilities. There is no transfer of funds between the DOC and Sheriffs to address operating costs associated with
these detainees.
Due to crowding in all facilities, new bedspaces will be required for Sheriffs and the DOC. Therefore, the
determination of the most appropriate location for this population will be critical to assess the bedspace needs
accordingly. Options for housing 52A‟s are as follows:
1. Status Quo:
This option continues to place the burden on DOC for their care and custody of 52A‟s. Although these
detainees have served previous sentences in DOC facilities, their status within the system is pretrial. As
such, “persons on a charge shall not be confined with convicts” according to MGL c.127, section 22.
Without revisions to this law, it is inefficient and a burden for DOC to provide separate pretrial DOC
facilities, given their primary mission is the incarceration and rehabilitation of serious offenders. The
removal of these inmates from Sheriff facilities increases transportation costs to court and makes family
visitation more difficult.
2. Relocate/ transfer 52A‟s to committing Sheriff facilities:
Based on the premise that Sheriff facilities are typically designed to house all security levels and are
accustomed to dealing with pretrial detainees, this option requires the transfer of 52A‟s to Sheriff facilities.
Operationally, this option would reduce transportation costs, result in a more efficient use of bedspaces in
existing pretrial units and bring detainees closer to their families.
3. Designate an existing facility to house Section 52A‟s:
- 72 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options – The Final Report

Chapter 4

This option considers housing these detainees in an underutilized facility that could potentially have
underutilized capacity. In fact, this is in practice to some extent today with many 52A‟s being housed in the
Plymouth Jail & HOC. The disadvantages to this option are similar to Option 1 except that if housed in a
Sheriff facility, there is improved efficiency. However, as populations grow, any „underutilized capacity‟
would likely be consumed by detainees and inmates from the originating counties of those facilities.
Although Options 1 and 3 are in effect to some extent today, Option 2 served as the basis in the development of the
CMP Strategic Capital Plan. The CMP recommends adding the bedspace needs for 52A‟s to the Sheriff facilities in
the committing county. As previously stated, the impact is in large part on Suffolk, Middlesex, and Worcester
Counties. As Middlesex and Worcester are in the Central Region, it may be possible to address the added bedspace
need or the resulting overflow of sentenced inmates in a regional facility.
General Population Male Offenders
Typical of all correctional systems in the United States, the incarcerated population in Massachusetts is
predominantly male. By 2020, the total male incarcerated population is expected to grow to almost 31,000, 94% of
the total incarcerated population. The category of General Population Male offenders discussed in this section in the
context of the CMP excludes inmates eligible for pre-release and inmates requiring sub-acute (long term) care in
medical and/or mental health facilities.
As will be discussed in greater detail under the topic of Pre-Release later in this Chapter, the number of eligible prerelease inmates to be housed in separate facilities and deducted from the general population is dependent upon
legislated mandatory sentencing requirements in addition to the classification system used by the DOC. The number
of general population bedspaces estimated for 2020 is between 26,172 and 24, 474, with 15,166 in Sheriff facilites
and 9,308 -11,006 in DOC facilities. With a total 2020 bedspace need of 33,631, the male general population
bedspaces will constitute between 73% and 78% of all bedspace needs.
With current overcrowding and anticipated growth in the incarcerated population, the CMP recommends that federal
inmates currently held in Sheriff facilities be removed over time. There were 3 major strategy options considered:
1. Status Quo:
This option assumes the continuation of historical incarceration roles. Capital resources will be allocated to
expand and maintain existing facilities and programs that provide for the management and responsibility of
the inmate populations of the DOC and Sheriffs separately. Informal agreements between parties regarding
the transfer of inmates and the sharing of resources would continue.
With current overcrowding, aging facilities, and anticipated growth, the need to stretch resources will only
increase. Adding bedspaces by jurisdiction would require multiple projects of varying sizes that would
outpace available funding provide little flexibility for changing bedspace needs between counties and fail to
address overcrowding in a more comprehensive manner. Although the least disruptive to the current „silos‟
between jurisdictions, the magnitude of the needs within the system makes this option unsustainable.
2. Managed Growth through Cooperative Agreements:
This strategy option proposes to continue the historical responsibilities of pretrial detention and sentences
up to 30 months remaining that of the Sheriffs and DOC housing offenders sentenced to more than 30
months.

- 73 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options – The Final Report

Chapter 4

Under an approach that manages growth with the continuation of current practices, the individual Sheriff
pretrial bedspace needs would be satisfied on a county-by-county basis with formalized resource- sharing
agreements between Sheriffs in neighboring counties. While not a “regional model” which handles growth
with new multi-jurisdictional facilities, this option proposes the creation of “virtual regions” and the
development of inter-county agreements to maximize available (and additional) bedspaces. The growth
needs of the DOC would be met through the expansion of services and facilities with an emphasis on
recognizing the capital implications of reduced custody levels and the implementation of pre-release
programs.
3. Institution-Based Correctional Services:
This strategy option proposes to establish correctional service regions that would eliminate the existing
duplication of services through a combination of cooperative agreements and the development of new
regional facilities serving both DOC and Sheriff inmates. The capital focus of this option would be the
expansion of bedspaces through the creation of new Community Treatment Centers – CTC‟s with the
concentration of programs and services for Sheriff and DOC sentenced long-term minimum custody
inmates in intensive treatment, medical, mental health, and women inmates. The Commonwealth will be
sub-divided into four regions: 1) northeast; 2) southeast; 3) central, and 4) western.
Pretrial needs would be satisfied on a county-by-county basis with formalized resource-sharing agreements
between adjoining counties. Additional pretrial beds would be created by transferring County-sentenced
inmates with lengthier sentences to regional general custody facilities similar to CTC‟s. Additional reentry
bedspaces would be created either in small leased facilities in communities or through a proto-type building
program for up to 200 Sheriff and DOC inmates at the regional CTC sites or at existing county facilities that
have available sites.
The advantages of this strategy allow for the continuation of jurisdictions while focusing on resourcesharing to achieve greater flexibility, cost-savings, and efficiency. By sharing resources for special
treatments and populations, general custody facilities can operate more efficiently. Growth of general
custody populations can be addressed regionally in multi-jurisdictional facilities, adding flexibility in
addressing changing bedspace needs from county to county.
Challenges in this strategy are focused on creating governance structures for these facilities, negotiating
shared classification systems and the appropriate allocation of operational funding.
4. Community-Based Correctional Services:
This strategy option proposes a significantly altered correctional model for the Commonwealth where the
responsibility for all incarceration services for inmates sentenced to more than 12 months would be
assigned to the DOC; reentry programs would be the exclusive responsibility of the Sheriffs. A risk and
needs assessment would determine whether a sentenced inmate qualifies to directly enter a county-based
reentry program or remains in a DOC facility for treatment services until eligible for a reentry program.
This approach would likely require the construction of additional DOC minimum custody bedspaces to
accommodate more inmates and the repurposing of Sheriff facilities to focus on pretrial detainees and
inmates eligible for pre-release /re-entry. This major organizational restructuring would require legislative
initiatives, facility repurposing and policy reform.

- 74 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options – The Final Report

Chapter 4

The Status Quo Option 1 is not sustainable. With limited funds and all jurisdictions sharing the same funding source,
maintaining the status quo is a missed opportunity to create a more integrated, flexible and efficient system in the
Commonwealth.
While Option 2, provides benefit in the implementation of „virtual regions‟ through inter-county agreements and
enables the continuation of the status-quo to a large extent, it does not provide a more cost-effective strategy for
adding new bedspaces and offers limited efficiencies.
While Options 3 and 4 are similar in that both assign inmates in a manner that enables the delivery of services in a
more comprehensive and effective correctional service, Option 3 is less disruptive, builds on the existing system to
gain efficiencies and was the recommended strategy developed in the CMP Strategic Capital Plan. However, Option
3 does require the implementation of new governance structures, negotiating shared classification systems and the
appropriate allocation of operational funding.

SPECIAL POPULATIONS
Special populations in the CMP include populations that are segregated from the large segment of the incarcerated
male population due to gender, program, and/or treatment needs. These populations include pre-release inmates,
women, and inmates requiring medical and mental health sub-acute care.
Pre-Release
Pre-release and re-entry programming is core to the reintegration of inmates back into the community and the
reduction of recidivism. The focus of all strategy options must be to deliver the most effective programs that enable
inmates to lead more productive lives in the community after incarceration to reduce recidivism. Developing
connections to the community including acess to services, housing and jobs are central to a successful reintegration.
In a DOC commissioned classification study, significant opportunities to modify the DOC‟s classification system were
identified that could reduce the security levels of many inmates, increasing the number of inmates eligible for prerelease without jeopardizing public safety.
The CMP recognizes that any strategy to reduce recidivism must include access to pre-release / re-entry programs
available only to inmates classified as eligible. Efforts to support DOC towards implementing further classification
reform are recommended.
Since women are considered a separate special population, this section focuses primarily on male inmates. Three
basic strategies were considered that mirror the general custody options as follows:
1. Status Quo:
This strategy option assumes the continuation of historical incarceration roles and duplicated efforts.
Currently, the DOC and Sheriffs provide pre-release programs with little coordination. The lack of a
consistent classification system and a clear process as well as formalized agreements and funding hamper
a more integrated approach to pre-release.
Although some eligible inmates are transferred to Sheriff facilities for pre-release, this practice has not been
widespread. Stepdown of DOC inmates into Sheriff facilities closer to their communities of origin is
- 75 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options – The Final Report

Chapter 4

generally not in practice. Although DOC provides similar programs, they do not have facilities in every
county or even in every region. Inmates do not have access as readily to the services in the communities
to which they will return.
This option would seek to provide pre-release facilities co-located with existing pretrial and sentenced units
for DOC and Sheriffs except for community custody residential and non-residential facilites which may be
located away from confinement units. The removal of federal inmates can provide some bedspace
expansion. DOC would continue to handle pre-release for its inmates and would require additional
bedspaces.
2. Managed Growth through Cooperative Agreements:
This strategy option proposes to continue the historical responsibilities and the duplicative roles of the
Sheriffs and DOC. However, future growth in the system can be satisfied on a county-by-county basis with
formalized resource-sharing agreements between Sheriffs in neighboring counties. Expansion of a Sheriff
facility and pre-release programs could be designed to house inmates from a neighboring county but be run
by a particular Sheriff. The DOC expansion would be handled with new prototype pre-release /reentry
facilities located adjacent to existing DOC institutions where possible.
Although not ideal in that inmates are not located in their communities, this strategy allows for the continued
use of existing facilities while addressing Sheriffs‟ needs collectively. DOC inmates would remain in
separate facilities.
3. Institution-Based Correctional Services:
This strategy option proposes to establish correctional service regions that through a combination of
cooperative agreements and the development of new regional facilities would serve Sheriff inmates and
most DOC inmates eligible for pre-release. While DOC would continue to house pre-release inmates in
existing facilities, projected new bedspaces would be added to Sheriff facilities. These facilities would
concentrate programs and services for Sheriff and DOC inmates over four regions in the Commonwealth
and would be run by Sheriffs.
This strategy can consolidate some services to make them more cost-effective and create more
consistency in pre-release programs across the state. A more aggressive DOC step-down program with
consistent classification criteria could be implemented.
4. Community-Based Correctional Services:
This strategy option proposes a significantly altered correctional model for the Commonwealth where the
responsibility for all incarceration services for inmates sentenced to more than 12 months would be
assigned to the DOC; reentry programs would be the exclusive responsibility of the Sheriffs.
By making re-entry the sole responsibility of Sheriffs, the duplication of efforts by DOC could be eliminated.
However, as previously stated, this approach would likely require the construction of additional DOC
bedspaces and the repurposing of Sheriff facilities to focus on pretrial detainees and inmates eligible for
pre-release /re-entry. This major organizational restructuring would require legislative initiatives, facility
repurposing and policy reform.
The benefit of this strategy is that all pre-release inmates could be located close to their communities and
the duplication of roles for the Sheriffs and DOC would be eliminated entirely. A more aggressive DOC
step-down program could be implemented. This strategy would require the repurposing of existing DOC
- 76 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options – The Final Report

Chapter 4

pre-release facilities if all inmates were transferred to Sheriffs. However, it is unlikely that all inmates can
successfully be transferred to Sheriffs, requiring DOC to continue to handle some pre-release inmates.
Conditions are not consistent across the Commonwealth with varying sizes of pre-release bedspace needs and
programming, as well as varying inventories of existing pre-release bedspaces in each county and region. There is
not a single strategy for how to handle pre-release in Massachusetts. The CMP recommends utilizing elements of
strategy options 1 through 3 in response to the varied conditions across the Commonwealth. However, in all cases, a
more aggressive program of DOC step-down into Sheriff facilities is recommended. Where possible to address the
needs, continued use of existing Sheriff and DOC pre-release facilities and programs should be continued. Where
existing successful programs can be expanded to serve multiple county populations to address needs on a regional
basis, expansion of existing Sheriff facilities should be undertaken. Although the restructuring of Option 4 is not
recommended, the creation of new multi-jurisdictional pre-release facilities remains as a viable approach.
Women
As discussed in more detail in the following Chapter, the management of female offenders presents unique
challenges to the traditional “male-centric” system. With higher rates of mental health disorders than their male
counterparts, histories of physical abuse, psychological stress associated with separation from children, and higher
risk than their male counterparts for experiencing co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders, the needs
of women offenders are extensive.
Critical issues surrounding the incarceration of women include the provision of programs while awaiting trial, mental
health and substance abuse treatment and proximity to their children. Several options similar to the 4 options outlined
for male offenders were also considered for pretrial, sentenced, and pre-release women. The small numbers of
inmates across the various jurisdictions limit the options due to the need for a critical mass of inmates required in
order to provide these services in a cost effective manner.
1. Status Quo:
Women comprise approximately one third of the newly sentenced DOC population, yet only 5.6% of the
average daily population (2007) were women. While the number of women given a custodial sentence by
the Court is increasing (also nationally), their length of confinement remains low. Additionally, many female
inmates serve a large portion of their sentences as „time served” awaiting trial. Although the number of
women entering DOC custody has increased during recent years, this rate of growth has been outpaced by
the growth in new male admissions with longer sentences, keeping the overall percentage of the female
DOC incarcerated population relatively stable with respect to the total population.
More than half of the approximately 1,322 incarcerated women in the Commonwealth (2009 ADP) are
currently held in very crowded conditions at MCI Framingham. As the incarcerated women population grew,
some Sheriff departments could not provide the segregated facilities required to house the relatively small
number of women in each county and correctional staff were not equipped to address the special needs of
female offenders. As a result, many county-sentenced and pretrial women were sent to MCI Framingham
where the combined populations could take advantage of special programs. Most of the women held at MCI
Framingham are either pretrial detainees or county-sentenced. In fact, only 37.5% of the women currently
held in Framingham have DOC sentences or are legitimately the responsibility of the DOC.
Women are also held in a few Sheriff facilities and in small numbers in many cases. Identified pre-release
units within communities are extremely limited with facilities only in Essex and Hampden Counties. While
- 77 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options – The Final Report

Chapter 4

expansion of MCI Framingham / SMCC will be considered, it alone cannot address all the needs associated
with women offenders. A Status Quo scenario would not address the needs of women offenders.
2. Managed Growth through Cooperative Agreements:
Due to the lack of existing facilities for women, future growth in the system cannot solely be satisfied on a
county-by-county basis with formalized resource-sharing agreements between Sheriffs in neighboring
counties. Expansion of some Sheriff facilities would be required and should be designed to house inmates
from a neighboring county. New pre-release facilities would need to be developed in multiple locations.
3. Institution-Based Correctional Services:
This strategy option proposes to establish correctional service regions that would eliminate the existing
duplication of services through a combination of cooperative agreements and the development of new
regional facilities to serve all Sheriff inmates and pretrial detainees. MCI Framingham would house all DOC
sentenced women. New pre-release facilities would need to be developed in multiple locations.
4. Community-Based Correctional Services:
This strategy considered creating a single multi-functional facility for all sentenced women (DOC and
County-sentenced) to replace MCI Framingham and shifting all pretrial women back to Sheriff facilities. This
would require the shifting of male populations currently housed in Sheriff facilities into multi-jurisdictional
male facilities in order to accommodate these relocated women.
Pretrial detainees in many cases are more demanding of services than sentenced inmates. Besides requiring access
to courts and their families, these detainees frequently require stabilization, detoxification and routine medical
treatments they have previously been unable to obtain. While logical that pretrial detainees be kept in Sheriff
facilities near the courts to minimize transportation costs, in the case of women this is not necessarily the most
effective strategy, given the specialized needs of women.
As women spend a much longer portion of their incarceration in the pretrial status than their male counterparts, the
window of opportunity to have a positive impact on their lives is frequently during this phase. Should women be
confined in Sheriff facilities closest to the courts, their small numbers cannot produce the critical mass required to
provide the needed services and programs in a cost effective manner. Additionally, incarcerated women are more
easily rehabilitated in a „community‟ setting as opposed to being isolated in a male facility. Additionally, housing
women in small numbers results in an inefficient use of facilities. In fact, as previously discussed, a large portion of
pretrial women are held at MCI Framingham for these reasons. Therefore, relocating pretrial women in small
numbers to multiple Sheriff facilities and displacing men is not an ideal solution.
While access to courts is less of a concern for sentenced women, maintaining the connection to their children
remains a concern. For all the reasons mentioned above, the CMP recommends creating regional women centers to
house all pretrial and sentenced inmates by expanding selected existing DOC and Sheriff facilities and programs on
a regional basis. Sheriffs and the DOC would continue to operate these facilities however cooperative agreements
would be required. Expanded teleconferencing for court hearings and a more efficient transportation system has the
potential to mitigate some of the disadvantages of regionalizing.
With reintegration the focus in the last 6 to 12 months of an inmate‟s sentence, pre-release facilities are best located
in the communities to which the inmates will return. Access to services, jobs, families, and housing while incarcerated
can enable a more successful reintegration into society and reduce the chances of recidivism. Therefore, the CMP
recommends pre-release facilities be located in communities within each county best suited to for reintegration. This
could involve the continued use of existing pre-release facilities, the repurposing of existing facilities, or the
- 78 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options – The Final Report

Chapter 4

development or leasing of new pre-release facilities. Where populations are small, facilities could be located to serve
multiple counties and run by either a particular Sheriff or through a new governance structure involving multiple
Sheriffs and the DOC. The regional women facilities can serve as resources for these smaller women pre-release
facilities.
Medical
A distinction between acute and sub-acute care is central to the discussion of medical bedspaces. Acute care is \
short term care while sub-acute care is focused on long term bedspaces for chronically ill and/or aging inmates who
require special treatment, cannot successfully function and may be vulnerable in the general population. Typically,
sub-acute facilities are similar to assisted-living with limited availability of skilled nursing beds. These bedspaces are
for inmates requiring assistance with daily living (ADL‟s).
Acute Care
In all strategy options, the assessment of existing infirmaries and clinics in existing facilities will be required. The use
of Shattuck Hospital bedspaces or replacement bedspaces as well as the use of local community through standard
rate contracts is constants in all strategy options. The provision of sub-acute bedspaces will open many existing
infirmary beds for their intended use as acute care beds.
Sub-Acute Care
While determining how to best provide adequate acute care (on-site services and services in local hospitals) is a
critical component of the health care delivery system, a more immediate need in the Massachusetts Correction
System is the provision of sub-acute care beds for the medical populations. In the workshops held with stakeholders
and during site visits to facilities, the lack of sub-acute medical and mental health beds was repeatedly reported. In
fact, there were only 13 beds identified for long-term care (ADL‟s) in 2007 and plans for increasing these bedspaces
were underway during the course of this study. A decided trend in prisons has been an attempt to separate the longterm, chronically ill, or disabled inmates from the general population through separated housing, and if possible,
separate, purpose-built facilities.
The calculation of the number of long term care beds by acuity levels in a corrections setting is a survey driven
science accomplished with the aid of clinicians. This more extensive effort was beyond the scope of the CMP,
however, for preliminary planning purposes, an estimate was generated utilizing benchmarks from other jurisdictions.
Prior to implementation of specific bedspace projects, a focused and detailed needs assessment study will be
required.
The 3 strategy options for sub-acute medical bedspaces are outlined as follows:
1. Status Quo:
If current operations remain unchanged, sub-acute c are needs of Sheriff inmates would be met by utilizing
existing infirmaries as well as portions of existing housing units. Staffing and treatment would remain
inconsistent. For the DOC, designated facilities would need to be upgraded or new bedspaces developed.
2. Managed Growth through Cooperative Agreements:
Similar to the Status Quo, a portion of sub-acute care bedspace needs for Sheriff inmates would be met by
designating portions of existing housing units. Additional bedspaces dedicated to medical populations
would be added on a regional basis with cooperative agreements between Sheriffs. The DOC would

- 79 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options – The Final Report

Chapter 4

identify more existing bedspaces for sub-acute care and expand Shattuck bedspaces for more intensive
sub-acute cases.
3. Institution-Based Correctional Services:
The sub-acute care needs of Sheriff inmates and the DOC would be met through the construction of
purpose-built Community Treatment Centers serving both populations. The DOC would be responsible for
the provision of these medical services.
As the most cost-efficient and effective way to provide sub-acute care is to combine populations into specialized
units, Option 3 is recommended. Retrofitting and staffing multiple facilities would not provide consistent care and may
ultimately prove to be more costly operationally. By removing these special needs inmates from multiple facilities,
infirmary beds will become available for their intended use and ease of operations will be enhanced. Because the
majority of inmates requiring long term care would be DOC inmates and because DOC has the organizational
infrastructure, these sub-acute care facilities would be managed by the DOC.
Mental Health
Due to the de-funding of community mental health agencies and the closure of many community-based residential
mental health treatment centers, in most jurisdictions throughout the USA, correctional facilities have become the
mental hospitals of the past. The Commonwealth is no exception to this phenomenon with the unfortunate result of
jails and correctional institutions housing an increasingly high percentage of inmates with mild to severe mental
disorders.
For the purposes of this study, short-term crisis care or acute care includes stabilization units and mental health
observation. As these beds are for short-term care, for purposes of this study they are in addition to housing
bedspace needs and would be included in the support spaces at any given facility or in centralized facilities.
Sub-acute care includes longer term treatment beds for inmates requiring separate housing from the general
population for special programming and/or treatment. Although Alcohol /Substance Abuse Residential Treatment
Units are a critical component of the system, bedspaces projections for this population have not been disaggregated
from the general population at this time but should be considered in the follow-up Needs Assessment Study.
Strategy options for mental health bedspaces considered are outlined below:
1. Status Quo:
Currently, male inmates with mental illness requiring specialized treatment and housing are held at
Bridgewater State Hospital (BSH). Although mostly DOC inmates, Sheriff inmates who are determined to be
eligible are also housed at BSH. However, due to a lack of bedspaces, there are few bedspaces available to
Sheriffs. Many of these inmates are held in infirmaries, general custody beds, or special management beds.
Continuation of the Status Quo would require the expansion of BSH in addition to the relocation of the civilly
committed mentally ill to DMH facilities in order to accommodate DOC and the more severe Sheriff inmates.
Additional bedspaces would need to be designated for this population in Sheriff facilities.
Because the configuration of BSH is not well-suited for this population, expansion is not an ideal solution.
Designating bedspaces in Sheriff facilities can make management of these inmates within each facility more

- 80 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options – The Final Report

Chapter 4

manageable, staffing and treatment programs would be duplicated exponentially and likely vary dramatically
in effectiveness.
2. Managed Growth through Cooperative Agreements:
Recognizing that BSH is unsuitable for its current use, this strategy option includes the construction of a
new and larger Correctional State Hospital to accommodate all DOC mentally ill inmates and civil
commitments should they not be relocated to DMH facilities. For Sheriffs, selected housing units within
existing facilities would be designated for the mentally ill including the construction of new beds. These
facilities would be sized to accommodate inmates from adjoining counties. Cooperative agreements would
be required.
3. Institution-Based Correctional Services:
This strategy option includes the repurposing of BSH as a minimum security facility and the construction of
new Community Treatment Centers (CTC‟s) to house mentally ill DOC and Sheriff inmates. These facilities
would be run by the DOC.
Like medical sub-acute care, the most cost-efficient and effective way to provide treatment is to combine populations
into specialized units, unburdening individual facilities with staffing and treatment. Therefore, Option 3 is
recommended.
In the majority of cases, inmates with severe enough mental health problems to require special treatment (more than
a regime of psychotropic medicine) often also have a medical condition that requires constant observation and
treatment. For this reason, the CMP recommends the creation of CTC‟s that address the sub-acute medical and
mental health needs of both the DOC and Sheriff populations.

ADDITIONAL STATE-WIDE IMPROVEMENTS
Improvements of the delivery of support services will be core to the creation of a more efficient and cost-effective
system. This section focuses on strategy options under 3 categories: Pre-arraignment, Technology, and
Transportation.
Pre-arraignment
Although currently not the responsibility of the DOC or Sheriffs, pre-arraignment has an impact on the efficiency and
effectiveness of the criminal justice system in Massachusetts. Pre-Arraignment in the Commonwealth is different
from that of many states. In a majority of counties throughout the USA, an individual arrested is often taken directly to
the county pretrial facility for booking and the pre-arraignment and arraignment processes. In some instances, an
arrestee may be taken to a police lockup for identification, but soon transferred to the local county facility for booking
and the beginning of the arraignment process.
In the Commonwealth, local municipal and State Police lockups typically provide holding until the pre-arraignment
process is completed. After that, those arrestees that do not make bail are transferred from a lock-up to the pretrial
county jail in a Sheriff facility. Many of the 300 local lockups are understaffed and inadequate for holding arrestees
beyond a very short timeframe. Furthermore, some towns may not be utilizing their lockups due to staffing, liability, or
capacity issues. Most do not have the cells for medical isolation, respiratory isolation, alcohol and/or drug withdrawal,

- 81 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options – The Final Report

Chapter 4

suicide watch or self-protection (restraint). Without facilities for meals preparation, laundry, visiting, day rooms,
showers, or medical clinics, these facilities are not equipped to hold arrestees for any significant period of time.
Although the financial responsibility for the pre-arraignment process currently rests with the municipalities and the
State Police, Sheriff facilities are better equipped to handle the myriad of issues surrounding arrestees. With the most
crucial high-risk period for suicide in the first 24 hours, the current practice may not be the most effective and costefficient method for the Commonwealth. Strategy options considered are outlined below:
1. Status Quo:
Pre-arraignment incarceration would remain the exclusive responsibility of the local municipalities and the
State Police. Informal agreements would remain in place.
2. Managed Growth through Cooperative Agreements:
Pre-arraignment incarceration would remain the exclusive responsibility of the local municipalities and the
State Police. A greater use of diversion programs that reduce the number of arrestees requiring pretrial
detention would be encouraged. Additional improvements could include the formalization of agreements
between Sheriff facilities and local municipalities to handle lock-ups or pre-arraignment incarceration in
specific instances, upgrade existing lockup facilities, and improve bail accessibility.
3. Institution-Based Correctional Services:
This strategy would transfer all pre-arraignment incarceration responsibilities to existing Sheriff facilities.
This would at minimum require the upgrade and possible expansion of intake / booking areas as well as
incur additional court transports. Use of video-arraignments, electronic tracking of detainees instead of
incarceration, electronic transfer of information and mandatory 24 hour arraignment would be expanded.
Although recognizing the benefits of Option 3, the needs that must be addressed in existing Sheriff facilities and
the jurisdictional issues that must be resolved between Sheriffs and the DOC have a greater priority at this time.
However, the CMP recommends further assessment of booking / intake areas at Sheriff facilities to
accommodate regional lockups as they are considered in building studies. The feasibility of formal agreements
with local municipalities and the relative need on a regional basis should be included in that assessment.
Technology
Without a more integrated approach to information gathering, storage, retrieval, dissemination, and management,
capital dollars invested to improve existing facilities and create new correctional facilities will only result in additional
“stovepipes” that have limited impact on improving the delivery of correctional services. Therefore, while the
correctional system, represented primarily by the DOC and the Sheriffs in this plan, regularly invests in technology,
this investment is in large part without regard to decisions being considered by other correctional agencies, and
almost never with consideration to the plans of other criminal justice agencies. Any initiative to improve the
management of criminal justice information must involve all stakeholders in the system.
The full implementation of MaSSNet previously called Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (ICJIS) is
recommended as central to any strategic option. Expansion of data sharing to include all Sheriffs and the DOC will be
central to creating a more integrated and efficient corrections system. This will become more critical as resourcesharing, regional facilities and DOC step-down of inmates into Sheriff facilities are advanced.

- 82 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options – The Final Report

Chapter 4

Transportation
The movement of inmates and detainees is a major annual expenditure for the DOC and Sheriffs which normally
includes a variety of destinations between jails, jails and prisons, prison transfers, courts, medical and dental centers,
interstate transfers and other special purpose trips. As each jurisdiction typically provides their own inmate
transportation, transportation has not been considered from a system-wide perspective. Although the CMP focuses
on capital investment with the goal to create a more integrated and coordinated system, upgrading support services
will be critical as well. Strategy options considered are outlined as follows:
1. Status Quo:
The DOC and Sheriffs would retain control over their separate systems to transport their inmates. Operating
efficiencies could be achieved through voluntary participation in a technology-based scheduling and tracking
system implemented by DOC. A State-County vehicle coordination and trip sharing program could begin to
create efficiencies and consistently log trips to inform additional future efficiencies that may be sought. A
central vehicle purchasing program would also give user agencies the benefit of reduced purchase prices.
2. Managed Growth through Cooperative Agreements:
In addition to the technology-based scheduling and tracking system described in Option 1, this strategy
option would also include cooperative agreements between Sheriffs and the DOC for routine trip sharing,
similar to the current West Region system operating out of Hampden County. DOC inmates who have court
appearances that span more than one day could stay at Sheriff facilities.
3. Institution-Based Correctional Services:
In addition to the technology-based scheduling and tracking system described in Option 1, this strategy
option would include regional transfer stations, possibly associated with new regional facilities or existing
facilities. The transfer stations would have the capacity to hold inmates on a short-term basis. Vehicles
would be assigned to each regional center. These regional centers would serve DOC and Sheriffs where
possible. In regions where no DOC facilities exist, a particular Sheriff facility could be designated as a
transfer center. This strategy option could include a fixed routed scheduled system using larger buses rather
than the current van-based demand-response type system.
4. Community-Based Correctional Services:
This strategy option would create a coordinated inmate transportation system under the management and
control of the DOC for trips between the DOC and multi-jurisdictional facilities and Sheriff facilities. Sheriffs
would retain control of local trips or regional service needs to courts and medical appointments. Regional
transfer centers could enable the transfer of inmates from the DOC to a local pre-release facility or from
Sheriff facilities to the DOC. Legislation would need to be modified to allow pretrial and sentenced inmates
in the same vehicles.
Without adequate data, it is difficult to implement an entirely new centralized system. Therefore the CMP
recommends the implementation of a technology-based scheduling and tracking system managed by DOC with
Sheriffs inputting into the system to share their transportation schedules and allow for tracking to provide a basis for a
possible future fixed route system supplemented by local transports. Central purchasing should be implemented
immediately. With the appropriate tools and support that include addressing change of custody issues, transportation
costs can be reduced without compromising service. The DOC system can provide expand service with larger
vehicles to make it more cost effective and Sheriffs can begin to focus on shorter local or regional trips.

- 83 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Master Plan Alternative Strategy Options - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan
The Final Report

Chapter 5
The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5 The Strategic Capital Plan
Based on the population forecasts, bedspace capacity definitions and strategy options outlined in previous chapters,
Chapter 5 The Strategic Capital Plan combines the data to describe the Corrections Master Plan recommendations
and illustrate the rationale behind the Strategic Capital Plan.
As a result of an interactive process involving numerous stakeholders, CMP goals as discussed in Chapter 4 evolved
and include: 1) Alleviate crowding; 2) Reduce recidivism; 3) Maximize existing resources; 4) Create a more
integrated, efficient and cost-effective system. Based on these goals, several overriding concepts emerged to define
the Strategic Capital Plan.
The maximization of existing resources is central to the Corrections Master Plan. Besides developing a process to
address deferred maintenance (as discussed in Chapter 2) and capital improvements, identifying the best use of
existing facilities as well as building on existing expertise and resources within the system is required to gain
maximum benefit. Expansion of the system to maximize the potential of each facility while creating a strategy to add
new facilities is required for the creation of a more integrated system.
New facilities must focus on providing services in a more cost-effective and efficient manner. Special treatment
populations are currently dispersed throughout the system, straining budgets and staffing and limiting effectiveness.
New multi-jurisdictional and/or regional special treatment facilities can enable a more cost-effective delivery of
services while unburdening each facility of these expenses and alleviating overcrowding by relocating special
populations into purpose-built facilities.
The concept of shared resources will be critical in achieving efficiencies. As a result of a system where each Sheriff
and the DOC have historically operated and were in large part funded independently, many services and systems are
duplicated with little coordination or sharing of resources. With current costs unsustainable and funding now single
sourced from the Commonwealth, the CMP seeks to identify opportunities to create a more efficient and integrated
system, building on the strengths and expertise present in the system today.
Centralized support systems that enable all jurisdictions to realize economies as well as add flexibility to the
system must be considered. The autonomy of individual jurisdictions must be balanced with efficiencies that are
critical to creating a sustainable system.
- 84 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

An emphasis on pre-release in order to reduce recidivism and prepare inmates to become productive members of
their communities upon release is a major building block in the CMP. To this end, the CMP seeks to encourage a
more aggressive DOC step-down program into Sheriff facilities where access to community services and connections
to families can be more easily made. By providing more pre-release facilities within communities, pre-release inmates
can make these critical connections and overcrowding in existing facilities can begin to be mitigated.
This Chapter, The Strategic Capital Plan, outlines the approach to meeting the CMP goals by examining different
populations within the Corrections System. Historically, the majority of inmates have been male and therefore
existing facilities have been focused on addressing their needs and issues. Special populations are in the minority in
the system but have been growing in the last decade, placing strains on the existing system.
Because the needs of these special populations differ from the majority of offenders within the system, the Strategic
Capital Plan focuses on disaggregating these populations and examining their needs separately. This Chapter begins
by focusing on each of the Special Populations, then focuses on the General Custody Male Population and
concludes with discussions on overarching topics including Pre-arraignment Incarceration, Technology,
Transportation, and Accessibility.

Part 1: Special Populations
While the need for general custody accommodation is apparent at the DOC and Sheriff departments, not unlike most
jurisdictions today, the most pressing need is for special custody bedspaces. In the context of this CMP, special
custody populations include the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Women Offenders
Medical Population
Mentally Ill Offenders
Pre-Release/Reentry Offenders
Sex Offenders in Core Treatment

Part 1 of this Chapter examines the needs of each of these special custody categories and recommends a capital
investment. Project cost estimates and additional annual operating costs associated with the capital investment are
covered in Chapter 6.

WOMEN OFFENDERS
The management of female offenders presents unique challenges to correctional administrators. With the expansion
of the female inmate population during the 1980‟s and 1990‟s, the traditional “male-centric” system was stressed by
new demands. As a result, significant attention has been focused recently on the adoption of “gender-responsive
correctional practices” – practices that recognize and address specific issues unique to incarcerated females. These
issues impact many aspects of the system such as the location of facilities, the type of housing and kind of programs
required.
In the Inventory and Analysis Report, four overarching characteristics of incarcerated women were identified and are
outlined below:

- 85 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

1. Women inmates in Massachusetts correctional facilities exhibit consistently higher rates of mental disorder
than their male counterparts. Consistent with this, the DOC reported that 67% of women held at MCI
Framingham in 2007 were actively on the mental health caseload and over 50% were receiving
psychotropic medications.
2. National surveys indicate that approximately 57 percent of women entering correctional facilities report
histories of physical abuse (approximately four times the rate of men); 39 percent report histories of sexual
abuse (approximately eight times the rate of men); and 37 percent report being victimized as children
(approximately two and a half times the rate of men).
3. Incarcerated women experience psychological stress associated with separation from children. An
estimated 65 percent of women entering correctional facilities have minor children, and approximately 64
percent of the women lived with their children prior to incarceration.
4. DOC data from 2007 indicated that 86% of women reported histories of substance abuse. An estimated 60
percent of women in correctional facilities meet the criteria for substance abuse or dependence and women
entering prison are at higher risk than their male counterparts of experiencing co-occurring mental illness
and substance use disorders.
While some of these characteristics also describe men offenders, they are more prevalent in the female population
and, thus, require special consideration in capital planning. As a cohort within the correctional system, women
offenders consume a disproportionate percentage of resources due to unique medical, mental health, treatment, and
even general custody requirements.
Current Conditions in the Commonwealth
More than half of the approximately 1,322 incarcerated women in the Commonwealth (2009 ADP) are currently held
in very crowded conditions at MCI Framingham. In large part, this is due to MCI Framingham housing many women,
both sentenced and pretrial, that have received county sentences and are technically the responsibility of the
Sheriffs. In fact, 47% of the women currently held in Framingham have DOC sentences or are legitimately the
responsibility of the DOC, including 3.4% which are Civil Commitments, Federal inmates and Holds for Other States.
As the incarcerated women population grew, some Sheriff departments could not provide the segregated facilities
required to house the relatively small number of women in each county and correctional staff were not equipped to
address the special needs of female offenders. As a result, many county-sentenced and pretrial women were sent to
MCI Framingham where the combined populations could take advantage of special programs. In fact, Massachusetts
General Law Chapter 125, Section 16 included provisions to house county-sentenced women and awaiting trial
women at MCI Framingham. While this solved several problems when implemented, the population has now grown
and outpaced MCI Framingham‟s capacity, compromising its mission to rehabilitate serious offenders. Not only is
MCI Framingham dealing with overcrowding, it also has to deal with the challenges of a varied population which
includes pretrial women unaccustomed to the system and frequently in need of detox and stabilization, female
offenders serving relatively short sentences, in addition to female offenders serving more serious time.
Women comprise approximately one third of the newly sentenced DOC population, yet only 7% of the average daily
population (ADP) in 2009 were women; including county women (DOC women comprised only 3.4%). While the
number of women given a custodial sentence by the Court is increasing (also nationally), their length of confinement
remains low. Additionally, many female inmates serve a large portion of their sentences as „time served” awaiting
trial. Although the number of women entering DOC custody has increased during recent years, this rate of growth
- 86 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

has been outpaced by the growth in new male admissions with longer sentences, keeping the overall percentage of
the female DOC incarcerated population relatively stable with respect to the total population. However, as the total
population has increased, the demands associated with housing female inmates and detainees have outpaced the
capacity of MCI Framingham. As previously mentioned, the majority of women housed within the DOC are awaiting
trial or serving county sentences of 30 months or less, amounting to 53% of the women held at MCI Framingham.
Although eight of the 13 counties incarcerate female offenders, many counties (even with capability to hold women)
transfer pretrial and sentenced women to MCI Framingham.
Table 5.1-1 presents the assignment of women to MCI Framingham on an average day in 2009 and Table 5.1-2
illustrates the women held in Sheriff facilities. As these tables illustrate, MCI Framingham is housing 61.4% of all
women in the Massachusetts Correctional System. Further, 156 of the 430 Sheriff inmates/detainees or 19.2% of the
MCI Framingham population were awaiting trial, removed from their committing / origin communities.
Table 5.1-1 ADP of Women in the MCI Framingham/ South Middlesex Correctional Facilities
Facility

2009 ADP

% by
% Women in
Jurisdiction
System

Women at MCI Framingham/ South Middlesex Correctional Center (SMCC)
DOC Sentenced
354
Civil Commitments
10
Holds for Other States
8
Federal Inmates
10
Subtotal DOC, Civil, Other, and Federal Inmates
382
County Awaiting Trial
Bristol
1
Essex
48
Middlesex
37
Norfolk
13
Plymouth
24
Suffolk
1
Worcester
32
Subtotal Pretrial County Inmates
156
County Sentenced Women
Barnstable
1
Bristol
Essex
77
Hampden
Hampshire
1
Middlesex
77
Nantucket
Norfolk
43
Plymouth
30
Suffolk
2
Worcester
43
Subtotal Sentenced County Inmates
274
Subtotal Women at MCI Framingham/SMCC
812

43.6%
1.2%
1.0%
1.2%
47.0%

26.8%
0.8%
0.6%
0.8%
28.9%

0.4%
5.9%
4.6%
1.6%
3.0%
0.1%
3.9%
19.2%

0.2%
3.6%
2.8%
1.0%
1.8%
0.1%
2.4%
11.9%

0.1%
0.0%
9.5%
0.0%
0.4%
9.5%
0.0%
5.3%
3.7%
0.2%
5.3%
33.7%
100.0%

0.1%
0.0%
5.8%
0.0%
0.2%
5.8%
0.0%
3.3%
2.3%
0.2%
3.3%
20.8%
61.4%

The use of the MCI Framingham/ SMCC as multi-jurisdictional facilities for county-sentenced and pretrial women has
resulted in the current level of crowding. With pretrial and county- sentenced inmates removed, MCI Framingham
could easily accommodate the current DOC female population.
Including federal inmates, civilly committed women, and women held for other states, DOC-sentenced inmates
represent less than half of the women at MCI Framingham/SMCC. Of the Sheriffs transferring inmates to MCI
Framingham/SMCC, five represent 52% of the 812 female ADP incarcerated at the DOC facilities in 2009. Based the
data in Table 5.1-1 and presented in order of the bedspaces occupied and percentage of the total are as follows:
- 87 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Essex
Middlesex
Worcester
Norfolk
Plymouth
Total

125 beds
114 beds
75 beds
56 beds
54 beds
424 beds

15.4%
14.0%
9.2%
6.7%
6.7%
52.0%

In addition to the DOC and county women incarcerated at MCI Framingham and South Middlesex Correctional
Center, 8 of the 13 counties held an average of 510 women in 2009 as shown in Table 5.1-2.
Table 5.1-2 ADP of Women in Sheriff Facilities
Facility

2009 ADP

Women in Sheriff Facilities
Barnstable County
Berkshire County
Bristol County
Dukes County
Essex County
Franklin County
Hampden County
Hampshire County
Middlesex County
Norfolk County
Plymouth County
Suffolk County
Worcester County
Subtotal Women in Sheriff Facilities

32
31
100
41
5
159
5
137
510

% by
% Women in
Jurisdiction
System
6.3%
6.1%
19.6%
0.0%
8.0%
1.0%
31.2%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
26.9%
0.0%
100.0%

2.4%
2.3%
7.6%
0.0%
3.1%
0.4%
12.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
10.4%
0.0%
38.6%

At this time, Suffolk, Hampden, and Bristol account for almost 78% of the women held in Sheriff-operated facilities. Four
of the 8 counties had an ADP of 31 or less while two held less than 10 on an average day. Incarcerating women in small
numbers at separate facilities frequently results in a poor use of space and minimal programming provided to the
women. While women in detention facilities represent 4% of the incarcerated county population, they occupy more than
5% of the bedspaces in housing units due to the need for separation of men and women. One incarcerated woman in a
housing unit, regardless of size, must be defined as a women‟s unit.
CMP Goals for Women
This Corrections Master Plan returns to the basic premise that women, particularly pretrial and county-sentenced,
should be incarcerated as close as feasible to their communities and families. Further, the CMP seeks to improve
conditions for women and realize better outcomes by increasing access to specialized programs and services.
Recognizing that critical mass is needed to cost effectively provide this programming, returning women in small
numbers to multiple facilities would create many new challenges and likely limit the delivery of programs for women.
Therefore, the CMP recommends returning female pretrial detainees and county-sentenced inmates to facilities as
close as possible to the community of origin while maintaining adequate numbers to provide necessary programs
cost-effectively.
Fundamental reasons supporting this plan are as follows:
- 88 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5



With an estimated 65% of women entering prison being the parents of minor children, proximity to their
homes and access to parenting programs reduces the psychological stress associated with separation and
encourages continued contact with their children, reducing recidivism and adding to family stability.



Sheriff departments have more developed connections with their communities and are better equipped to
transition women back into their communities with pre-release and reentry programs and services. The
ultimate goal is to expand this expertise to include the “stepping down” of DOC sentenced women in their
last 6-12 months into Sheriff pre-release and reentry programs and facilities in their counties of origin.



Connections to community-based services made while incarcerated promote the likelihood that released
inmates will obtain continued treatment in their communities upon release, therefore potentially reducing
recidivism further.

Recognizing that the original issues that necessitated the location of these pretrial and county-sentenced inmates to
MCI Framingham/SMCC still exist, developing a cost-effective strategy to now address those issues is important. A
cost-effective strategy must address creating a critical mass of inmates in a facility in order to create a sense of
community among the women conducive to rehabilitating women and making programs cost-effective. Renovating all
Sheriff facilities to introduce small segregated populations could exhaust capital budgets without addressing other
capital needs at individual facilities or within the system as a whole. And staffing each facility and/or retraining current
staff to address the special needs of women at every Sheriff facility would not be cost-effective.
CMP Regional Strategy
In order to meet the CMP goals and address the potential obstacles described above, the CMP Strategy focuses on
a regional approach that provides flexibility and cost-effectiveness while achieving the CMP goal to locate women
closer to their families and communities. With recent changes in funding arrangements (Acts of 2009 -Chapter 61)
and the need for a more cost-effective and sustainable system, this regional, multi-jurisdictional approach is
recommended to be implemented in a more consistent and formal manner. The regional approach with respect to
women offenders enables the consolidation of otherwise sparse populations of individual sheriff jurisdictions while
maintaining reasonable proximity to the county of origin. This approach enables a more cost-effective delivery of
services, maximizes bedspace utilization by minimizing segregation within multiple facilities, minimizes staffing and
capital renovations that would otherwise be required at multiple locations and optimizes size of communities
appropriate for housing female inmates.
Population Projections
Projections were developed for the anticipated number of women in the system by 2020. These projections were
based on data that was supplied by the DOC and Sheriffs and assembled by DCAM. For county sentenced women
housed in Sheriff facilities, weekly counts were used to develop ADP‟s (Average Daily Population) for the last 10
years (2000-2009). For women housed in DOC facilities which included county and DOC sentenced women as well
as pretrial women, ADP‟s from Quarterly Reports were collated. To disaggregate county sentenced and pretrial
women from DOC sentenced, snapshots from 2006 through 2009 were used. These snapshots also provided county
of origin for county women. In the ADP‟s, county women housed in the DOC were then allocated to their county of
origin. The DOC sentenced women were calculated by extracting county women from the DOC ADP. Utilizing this
data, the projection of bedspace needs for women by 2020 was based upon the following steps:
- 89 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

1. Use historical ADP‟s prepared by the DOC and DCAM as a base for the number of women incarcerated by
Sheriffs and the DOC.
2. Projections generated based on the methodology discussed in Chapter 1 to forecast the future number
(ADP) of women.
3. Apply a 15% factor to the ADP (Step 2) to convert ADP to bedspaces required, taking into account peaking
and classification factors. A 5% factor was applied to the projected DOC ADP since the peaking and
classification issues should be less varied for facilities housing only DOC inmates due to longer sentences.
4. For county women, calculate the historic ratios of pretrial and sentenced women to the total women‟s ADP
and apply that ratio to the results of Step 3. Based on past ratios, approximately 37% of the projected
county population will be pretrial.
Table 5.1-3 illustrates the 2020 bedspace projections based on the methodology described above. As a starting
point, the four region approach for Sheriffs as previously outlined in Chapter 1 was used in the analysis.
Table 5.1-3 Projection of Women Bedspaces in 2020 by Adjudication Status and Region
2009 ADP

Facility
Pretrial

Essex County
Suffolk County
Northeast Region
Middlesex County
Norfolk County
Worcester County
Central Region
Barnstable County
Bristol County
Dukes County
Plymouth County
Southeast Region
Berkshire County
Franklin County
Hampden County
Hampshire County
West Region
Total Sheriff Women
DOC Sentenced
DOC Civil Commitments
DOC Holds for Other States
DOC Federal Inmates
Total DOC Women
Total Women

57
58
115
39
13
36
89
13
43
14
69
8
5
53
3
68
341
10
10
20
361

Sent.

109
82
191
75
43
39
156
20
58
40
119
23
106
3
133
599
354
8
362
961

2020 ADP
Total

Pretrial

166
140
306
114
56
75
245
33
101
54
188
31
5
159
6
201
940
354 10
8
10
382
1,322

79
61
140
48
17
57
121
20
50
15
85
9
11
59
3
82
428
16
16
444

2020 Projected Beds

Sent.

Total

149
87
236
90
53
62
205
32
69
43
144
25
120
4
149
734
305
7
18
330
1,064

228
148
376
138
70
119
326
52
119
58
229
34
11
179
7
231
1,162
305 16
7
18
345
1,507

Pretrial

91
70
161
55
19
65
139
23
58
17
98
10
12
68
4
94
492
16
16
509

Sent.

Total

172
100
272
104
61
71
236
37
79
50
165
29
137
5
171
844
320
8
18
346
1,190

263
170
432
159
80
136
375
60
137
0
67
263
39
12
206
9
265
1,336
320
16
8
18
363
1,699

Source:DOC Annual Report, 2007; Projections and disaggregations by Carter Goble Lee; May 2009; excludes Nantucket; Split between pretrial and
sentenced based on Snapshop in 2009

As Table 5.1-3 illustrates, the county-sentenced and pre-trial women will require 1,336 bedspaces by 2020. With the
2009 ADP for DOC women at 382, including civil commitments, holds for other states, and federal inmates, the DOC
ADP is projected to decrease to 345 by 2020 with a bedspace requirement of 363. The total projected ADP for
women by 2020 is 1,507 which translates to a need for 1,699 bedspaces.
The 2020 projected ADP is 320 for DOC sentenced women which reflects a decrease of 34 women from the 2009
ADP. The projected bedspace need of 363 includes 42 bedspaces for women from other states and federal inmates
- 90 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

from the US Marshal‟s Office and 16 Section 35 civil commitments (Alcohol and Substance Abuse). Mentally ill civil
commitments are held by the Department of Mental Health and were not projected. Should Section 35 detainees be
transferred out of the DOC‟s custody, the total bedspace needs for DOC women are estimated at 346. As noted in
Chapter 1, these projections assume no legislative or sentencing changes in the current system.
Comparison of Facility Capacity to Overall Bedspace Projections
In order to determine bedspace shortfalls moving into the future, the bedspace capacity of existing facilities must be
compared to the total projected bedspace need required to accommodate the projected incarcerated population in
2020. In Chapter 1, the need to redefine bedspace capacity of existing facilities based on more consistent, evidencebased criteria was discussed in detail. By applying this criteria (based on ACA recommendations and State plumbing
code requirements), a CMP Baseline Capacity was generated for all facilities. This new criteria defines target
conditions that address overcrowding and creates a baseline for planning future bedspaces. Additionally, specific
improvements based on these criteria were identified at some facilities that could yield a higher Potential Capacity, if
determined to be feasible. Bedspace needs and facility bedspace capacities of existing women units and facilities
were incorporated in Table 5.1-4 and segregated by region as this approach best suits the goal of locating women
close to “home” while balancing the logistics and cost-effective grouping of women in regional centers.
Table 5.1-4 Comparison of Women Beds to Population Projections by Region – excluding civil commitments
2009 ADP - Females only
Facility

Current
Female
Beds

CMP
Capacity
Females

Facility

MCI
Framingham &
SMCC

Total

2015
Female
Beds
Needed

2020
Female
Beds
Needed
(excl. civil
commits)

CMP
Capacity to
CMP
2020
2009
Capacity to Shortfall
Female
2015
(CMP
Beds
Females Capacity )
Needed

Potential
Capacity

2020
Shortfall
(Potential
Capacity)

24

24

41

125

166

226

263

(167)

(202)

(239)

24

(239)

Suffolk
Northeast Region

215
239

110
134

137
178

3
128

140
306

177
402

170
432

(51)
(218)

(67)
(268)

(60)
(298)

186
210

16
(222)

Middlesex
Norfolk
Worcester
Central Region
Barnstable
Bristol
Dukes
Nantucket
Plymouth
Southeast Region
Berkshire
Franklin
Hampden
Hampshire
West Region
Subtotal Sheriffs
MCI Framingham
South Middlesex
Subtotal DOC
System Totals

0
0
0
0
72
134
0
0
0
206
71
6
230
6
313
758
696
186
882
1,640

0
0
0
0
48
40
0
0
0
88
64
6
240
8
318
540
400
155
555
1,095

0
0
0
0
32
100
0
0
0
132
31
5
159
5
200
510
228
154
382
892

114
56
75
245
1
1
0
0
54
56
0
0
0
1
1
430
430

114
56
75
245
33
101
0
0
54
188
31
5
159
6
201
940
228
154
382
1,322

145
73
130
349
52
130
0
0
65
247
39
10
203
8
260
1,258
397
0
397
1,656

159
80
136
375
60
137
0
0
67
263
39
12
206
9
265
1,336
346
0
346
1,682

(131)
(64)
(86)
(282)
10
(76)
0
0
(62)
(128)
28
0
57
1
87
(541)
138
(22)
116
(425)

(145)
(73)
(130)
(349)
(4)
(90)
0
0
(65)
(159)
25
(4)
37
(0)
58
(718)
3
155
158
(561)

(159)
(80)
(136)
(375)
(12)
(97)
0
0
(67)
(175)
25
(6)
34
(1)
53
(796)
54
155
209
(587)

0
0
0
0
64
40
0
0
0
104
72
6
240
8
326
640
432
187
619
1,259

(159)
(80)
(136)
(375)
4
(97)
0
0
(67)
(159)
33
(6)
34
(1)
61
(696)
86
187
273
(423)

Essex

430

Notes: 2009 ADP based on a 2009 Snapshot provided by DOC; 2009 ADP translated to bedspaces with multipliers - 15% for Sheriffs & 5% for DOC

Table 5.1-4 above illustrates, there are currently 1,640 female beds in the system. When the CMP Baseline Capacity
standards are applied, the capacity reduces to 1,095 beds. As shown in Table 5.1-3, the system-wide female
population is projected to increase by 185 women from the 2009 ADP of 1,322 to 1,507 by 2020. Total female
bedspace needs are projected to grow to approximately 1,699 by 2020 (1,682 without civil commitments) from 1,656
bedspaces needs for 2015.
- 91 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

The 1,640 current female beds in the system accommodate the 2009 female ADP of approximately 1,322 (with a
translated bedspace need of 1,520), with some unutilized capacity. However, when applying the CMP Baseline
Capacity of 1,095 to the 2009 bedspace need, there is a shortfall of 425 bedspaces. In other words, if only
bedspaces meeting these basic housing standards were used, there would be a shortfall of 425 bedspaces now.
By implementing capacity-driven improvements, the Potential Capacity for women bedspaces in the system as a
whole can be increased to 1,259 (an addition of 164 beds). The CMP Baseline Capacity does not incorporate
program and support space needs (kitchens, intake, library, program space, etc.) which must be examined on a
facility-by-facility basis and may in fact further reduce capacity. CMP Baseline Capacity is intended to represent a
baseline for planning future bedspace needs while improving conditions in existing facilities over time and is not
necessarily prescribing that a particular facility house specifically that number of inmates today.
Based on the CMP Baseline Capacity, the bedspace shortfall is projected to increase to 561 by 2015. By 2020, the
shortfall is expected to rise to 587 (604 with civil commitments). With potential capacity improvements outlined in
Chapter 1, the shortfall can be reduced to 423 (Potential Capacity). However, not all facilities are utilized to the same
degree. Some facilities have underutilized bedspaces while others are overcrowded. Additionally, existing bedspaces
in the total count may no longer be appropriate to serve the needs of the system or be located where they are
needed. An effective strategy will require alignment of bedspace needs with the current inventory and location of
facilities to accomplish the CMP goals. As noted in Chapter 1, ADA compliance must be assessed on a facility-byfacility basis and brought into compliance as part of or before any increase in capacity.
When considering the Sheriffs on a regional basis, only the West Region currently has underutilized bedspace
capacity and is projected to have some unused capacity even into 2020. This is in large part due to the Western MA
Regional Women‟s Correctional Center in Hampden County. However, it should be noted that the projections in
Table 5.1-4 for each Sheriff department do not include women stepping-down for pre-release from the DOC which
will be addressed later in this Chapter.
The Northeast Region which includes Essex and Suffolk counties has the highest projected 2020 bedspace need of
432 bedspaces but the second highest bedspace shortfall of 298 beds by 2020. This shortfall can be reduced to 222
bedspaces with Potential Capacity improvements.
The Central Region which includes Middlesex, Norfolk and Worcester has the greatest 2020 bedspace shortfall of
375, not including the two DOC facilities. The DOC facilities, MCI Framingham and South Middlesex Correctional
Center are the only facilities in the Central Region currently housing women.
The Southeast Region has two Sheriff departments that house women, Barnstable and Bristol. Plymouth women
are currently housed at MCI Framingham while Dukes and Nantucket have very few women. The bedspace needs in
this region are exasperated by the large decrease of bedspace capacity resulting from the application of the CMP
Baseline Capacity standards, a decrease of 118 beds (from 206 Current Beds to 88 CMP Baseline Capacity beds).
The 2020 bedspace shortfall of 175 based on CMP Capacity can be decreased to 159 with targeted improvements.
System-wide, the majority of women are housed at three Sheriff department facilities and two DOC facilities. The
three Sheriff facilities, Suffolk, Bristol, and Hampden are located in three regions, Northeast, Southeast and West
respectively while the DOC facilities are housed in the remaining Central Region. Based on 2009 ADP, four facilities
have unused CMP Baseline Capacity when housing only women from their jurisdictions (excluding women from other
jurisdictions that are currently housed there). These include Barnstable, Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden, and MCI
Framingham. Of these facilities, three are Sheriff facilities located in the West Region. If county sentenced and
- 92 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

pretrial women were reassigned to Sheriff facilities, the largest surplus of women bedspaces would be at MCI
Framingham, illustrating that there is more than adequate bedspace for the DOC women. Perhaps more importantly,
this illustrates that the needs of particular counties alone do not support the existing bedspaces and suggests the
need for a regional approach, especially for women.
Currently, the DOC has the only truly women‟s multi-jurisdictional facility, consistently housing county women. While
Suffolk may house some women from Plymouth, they have not been reported in their Weekly Counts and may be
„swaps‟. Although Hampden County‟s Western MA Regional Women‟s Center (WMRWC) was intended to house
women from neighboring counties, this potential has not yet been realized except on sporadic occasions. Should the
WMRWC house increasing numbers of women from other counties, the underutilization of beds shown in the table
would be absorbed. The critical point is that the WMRWC was originally conceived as a regional center that houses
women from other counties and has capacity beyond the needs of women originating from Hampden County only.
Of note, this analysis focuses on bedspace capacity, not considering operational and staffing issues which could
explain unused bedspace capacity in some locations, particularly Hampden. However, the CMP focuses first on how
to best utilize the bedspaces available and expand the system‟s capacity to meet the projected population growth. In
order to realize better outcomes for women, operational funding, staffing issues, and adequacy of program and
support spaces will also need to be addressed as new bedspaces are brought on-line.
Potential Impact of Pre-Release on Bedspace Needs
The impact of adding pre-release space to the system will be critical in addressing crowding, reducing the need for
the construction of additional secure beds. The relocation of eligible inmates into pre-release bedspaces located
outside the secure perimeter can provide a smoother transition back into their communities in less secure and less
costly facilities. Although discussed more comprehensively later in this Chapter, this section will focus on the
potential impact of pre-release and DOC step-down into Sheriff facilities on women bedspaces only. For purposes of
the CMP, total secure beds include pre-trial beds and sentenced beds but exclude pre-release beds.
Based on data provided by Sheriffs, 22 % or 186 of the Sheriffs‟ female sentenced beds should be allocated for
women eligible for pre-release in 2020. Based on DOC provided data for 2009, pre-release for women was at 4.8%
and men were at 3.1% of the sentenced populations. Although the women pre-release percentage included countysentenced women, this percentage was applied to DOC women in the Table 5.1-5 below by bedspace type.
Table 5.1-5 Summary of Projected Women Bedspaces by Type in 2020 – Current Classification System
Sentenced Women Beds
Pretrial
Women
Beds

DOC
Sheriffs
Totals

492
492

Total
Total
Secure Secure Beds
Pre-Release
Total Beds
Sentenced
Sentenced - Sentenced
+ DOC StepWomen
Women
+ Pretrial
down Beds
Beds
Beds
346
844
1190

16
186
202

330
658
988

330
1151
1480

346
1336
1682

Sheriffs Pre-release estimated @ 22% of sentenced population: DOC women @ 4.8%

Table 5.1-5 illustrates that approximately 202 Sheriff Pre-Release / DOC step-down bedspaces will be needed for
women in 2020, reducing the sentenced secure beds to approximately 988.

- 93 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

As will be discussed in more detail in the Pre-release section, the number of DOC inmates eligible for pre-release
and/or step-down should be greater than the current classification system yields according to a DOC commissioned
study. Consistent with the CMP goal to reduce recidivism, increasing the number of eligible inmates for pre-release
can better prepare inmates for a productive and successful re-entry. Utilizing a proposed DOC classification system,
pre-release beds for DOC women offenders eligible for step-down was calculated at 16.5% of the sentenced
population. This calculation eliminates inmates that are within the release eligibility date but are such serious
offenders that they do not qualify for a community-based assignment. Table 5.1-6 summarizes the projected female
population in 2020 by type of bedspace required applying the proposed classification system.
Table 5.1-6
Summary of Projected Women Bedspaces by Type in 2020 – Proposed Classification System
Sentenced Women Beds
Pretrial
Women
Beds

DOC
Sheriffs
Totals

492
492

Total
Total
Secure Secure Beds
Pre-Release
Sentenced
Sentenced - Sentenced Total Beds
+ DOC StepWomen
Women
+ Pretrial
down Beds
Beds
Beds
346
844
1190

57
186
242

290
658
948

290
1151
1440

346
1336
1682

Sheriffs Pre-release estimated @ 22% of sentenced population; DOC @ 16.5%

This proposed classification system would result in 57 pre-release bedspaces for the DOC, an increase of 41
bedspaces from the current system, reducing the sentenced secure bedspace need to approximately 948.
Although initiatives are ongoing to implement a less risk-averse classification system, such initiatives take time to be
fully realized. Utilizing these estimates for pre-release bedspaces, the need for secure beds can be reduced by 186
beds for Sheriff departments collectively and somewhere between 16 to 57 beds for the DOC, depending on the
classification system implemented.
As the Sheriffs and DOC classify inmates differently, clear criteria are needed to implement step-down from the DOC
to the Sheriff facilities. With clear criteria in place, DOC inmates stepping down into Sheriff facilities would
presumably spend a period of time in minimum custody in DOC or Sheriff facilities prior to moving into pre-release
beds. The CMP recommends that these criteria be developed by a committee that includes the Executive Office of
Public Safety and Security (EOPSS), the DOC and Sheriff departments to ensure a smooth and efficient process.
As the pre-release bedspace calculations do not necessarily include minimum custody bedspaces, the peaking /
classification multipliers applied to the ADP create bedspaces within the secure facilities that can accommodate
temporary placement of DOC step-down inmates. Alternatively, individual pre-release facilities could also include
minimum bedspaces as circumstances and practices require.
Because these pre-release beds could be located outside the secure perimeter in potentially leased facilities, building
out these bedspaces is not the first priority in the CMP Capital Plan. Although the magnitude of any savings is not yet
quantifiable, incorporating pre-release beds into the system is an opportunity to realize better outcomes for women
and reduce the need for secure beds by 202 to 242 in 2020. Further discussions to implement this initiative are
required moving forward and can be summarized as follows:


System-wide criteria and process for step-down and pre-release eligibility must be determined in order to
support the transfer of inmates effectively and the forecasting of actual pre-release and minimum security
bedspace needs overtime. Efforts towards a standardized classification system should be made.
- 94 -

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5




Operational costs associated with pre-release facilities should be considered and compared to costs of
housing in secure facilities.
Cost benefit analysis needs to be generated, comparing life-cycle costs for purpose-built versus leased
facilities.

Tables 5.1-7 and 5.1-8 below illustrate county-sentenced pre-release populations combined with the potential
distribution of DOC step-down inmates based on historic release patterns, utilizing the current and proposed
classification systems respectively. Although both tables assume all eligible inmates will step-down into Sheriff
facilities, some DOC pre-release beds may still be needed and will be determined based on system-wide discussions
previously noted.
Table 5.1-7
Women Pre-Release and DOC Step-down Bedspace Needs
Current Classification
Sheriff

Pre-Release
Beds 2020

Essex
Suffolk
Northeast Region
Middlesex
Norfolk
Worcester
Central Region
Barnstable
Bristol
Dukes
Nantucket
Plymouth
Southeast Region
Berkshire
Franklin
Hampden
Hampshire
West Region
DOC Pre-release
TOTALS

DOC Stepdown 2020

38
22
60
23
13
16
52
8
17
0
0
11
36
6
0
30
1
38

Sheriff

Total

2
2
4
4
1
4
9
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
16

186

Table 5.1-8
Women Pre-Release and DOC Step-down Bedspace Needs
Proposed Classification
Pre-Release
Beds 2020

Essex
Suffolk
Northeast Region
Middlesex
Norfolk
Worcester
Central Region
Barnstable
Bristol
Dukes
Nantucket
Plymouth
Southeast Region
Berkshire
Franklin
Hampden
Hampshire
West Region
DOC Pre-release
TOTALS

40
24
64
27
14
20
61
8
18
0
0
12
39
6
0
31
1
38
1
202

DOC Stepdown 2020

38
22
60
23
13
16
52
8
17
0
0
11
36
6
0
30
1
38

Total

8
7
15
13
4
14
30
1
2
0
0
5
8
0
0
1
0
1
3
57

186

46
29
74
36
17
30
82
9
19
0
0
16
44
6
0
31
1
39
3
242

Sheriffs Pre-release estimated @ 22% of population; DOC @ 16.5%

Sheriffs Pre-release estimated @ 22% of sentenced population; DOC @ 4.8%

These pre-release and DOC step-down bedspaces are incorporated into Tables 5.1-9 and 5.1-10 to disaggregate
pre-release and „secure‟ bedspaces by region, utilizing both the current and proposed classification systems.
Table 5.1-9 Projection of Women Pre-Release Bedspaces in 2020 – Current Classification
Region

Total Projected
Sheriff Female
Sentenced Beds
2020

Northeast Region
Central Region
Southeast Region
West Region
DOC Out-of State Pre-release
Totals

Projected Sheriff Projected Sheriff
Female
Female Sentenced
Pre-Release Beds
Secure Beds

Total Projected
Projected DOC
Projected DOCDOC Female
Female
Stepdown PreSentenced
Sentenced
Release Beds
Beds 2020
Secure Beds

272
236
165
171

60
52
36
38

212
184
129
133

0
346
0
0

844

186

658

346

4
9
2
0
1
16

0
330
0
0
330

Total PreRelease by
Region

64
61
39
38
1
202

Sheriffs Pre-release estimated @ 22% of sentenced population; DOC @ 4.8%

- 95 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5
Table 5.1-10 Projection of Women Pre-Release Bedspaces in 2020 – Proposed Classification
Total Projected
Sheriff Female
Sentenced Beds
2020

Region

Projected Sheriff Total Projected
Projected DOC
Projected Sheriff
Projected DOCFemale
DOC Female
Female
Female
Stepdown PreSentenced Secure Sentenced
Sentenced
Pre-Release Beds
Release Beds
Beds
Beds 2020
Secure Beds

Total PreRelease by
Region

Northeast Region
Central Region
Southeast Region

272
236
165

60
52
36

212
184
129

0
346
0

15
30
8

0
290
0

74
82
44

West Region
DOC Out-of State Pre-release
Totals

171

38

133

0

0

844

186

658

346

1
3
57

39
3
242

290

Sheriffs Pre-release estimated @ 22% of sentenced population; DOC @ 16.5%

With a need for women‟s pre-release beds in the range of 202 to 242, the anticipated need for women‟s sentenced
secure beds (Sheriffs and DOC) by 2020 is between 948 and 988 (not including pretrial beds). The addition of prerelease beds will have the greatest impact on secure beds in Sheriff facilities.
In order to assess anticipated 2020 bedspace shortfalls by type of bedspace, a comparison of existing bedspace
capacities with the projected need is necessary. Combining the data from the previous tables, Table 5.1-11 illustrates
the breakdown of women‟s‟ bedspace needs and shortfalls for pre-release and total „secure‟ beds (including pretrial
beds), applying CMP Baseline Capacity and Potential Capacity to bedspaces as currently classified and utilizing
DOC‟s current classification system for DOC step-down.
Table 5.1-11 Projected Women Bedspaces Needs and Shortfalls by Region in 2020 – Current Classification
Facility

Essex

Current
Female Beds

CMP
Capacity
Females

2015
CMP Female
Projected
Capacity to
Female Beds
2015
Needed
Females

2020 Female Bedspace Shortfall based 2020 Female Bedspace Shortfall based
on CMP Capacity
on Potential Capacity

2020 Projected Female Beds Needed

Secure
Beds

Pre-release
beds

DOC Stepdown / Prerelease

Total Beds Secure Beds

Pre-release +
Total Beds
Step-down

Secure
Beds

Pre-release +
Total Beds
Step-down

24

24

226

(202)

225

38

2

265

(225)

(16)

(241)

(225)

(16)

(241)

Suffolk
Northeast Region

215
239

110
134

177
402

(67)
(268)

148
373

22
60

2
4

172
437

(38)
(263)

(24)
(40)

(62)
(303)

38
(187)

(24)
(40)

14
(227)

Middlesex
Norfolk
Worcester
Central Region
Barnstable
Bristol
Dukes
Nantucket
Plymouth
Southeast Region
Berkshire
Franklin
Hampden
Hampshire
West Region
Subtotal Sheriffs
MCI Framingham
South Middlesex
DOC
TOTAL System

0
0
0
0
72
134
0
0
0
206
71
6
230
6
313
758
696
186
882

0
0
0
0
48
40
0
0
0
88
64
6
240
8
318
540
400
155
555

23
13
16
52
8
17
0
0
11
36
6
0
30
1
38
186

0

4
1
4
9
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
16
1
0
1

162
81
141
384
61
137
0
0
68
266
39
12
206
9
266
1,352
331
0
331

1,095

(145)
(73)
(130)
(349)
(4)
(90)
0
0
(65)
(159)
25
(4)
37
(0)
58
(718)
3
155
158
(561)

136
67
121
323
52
119
0
0
56
227
32
12
175
8
228
1,151
330
0
330

1,640

145
73
130
349
52
130
0
0
65
247
39
10
203
8
260
1,258
397
0
397
1,656

1,480

186

16

1,682

(136)
(67)
(121)
(323)
(4)
(79)
0
0
(56)
(139)
32
(6)
17
0
42
(683)
69
1
70
(612)

(27)
(14)
(20)
(61)
(8)
(18)
0
0
(12)
(39)
(6)
0
17
(1)
10
(129)
0
154
154
25

(162)
(81)
(141)
(384)
(13)
(97)
0
0
(68)
(178)
25
(6)
34
(1)
52
(812)
69
155
224
(587)

(136)
(67)
(121)
(323)
12
(79)
0
0
(56)
(123)
40
(6)
17
0
50
(583)
101
1
102
(480)

(27)
(14)
(20)
(61)
(8)
(18)
0
0
(12)
(39)
(6)
0
17
(1)
10
(129)
0
186
186
57

(162)
(81)
(141)
(384)
3
(97)
0
0
(68)
(162)
33
(6)
34
(1)
60
(712)
101
187
288
(423)

Notes: DOC Step-down not included in 2015 bedspace needs; 2020 bedspace needs include DOC step-down @ 4.8% of sentenced population

The CMP Baseline Capacity and Potential Capacity were considered to assess the baseline and the maximum
capacity that could be achieved in existing facilities with targeted investment for minor improvements. Shortfalls have
been further broken down into secure beds and pre-release beds. As previously noted, these capacities are used for
high level planning purposes and will require more detailed assessment on a facility basis to determine feasibility. In
many cases, adding bedspaces to a facility will likely require additional program and support spaces as well.
- 96 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Although not dramatically different in total bedspace breakdown, Table 5.1-12 illustrates the projected bedspace
shortfalls by Sheriff department and region and includes DOC step-down based on the proposed DOC classification
system. Because classification impacts pre-release eligibility of DOC step-down inmates only, the pre-release
shortfalls increase while the secure bed shortfalls remain the same in Sheriff facilities. The region experiencing the
greatest impact as a result of classification would be the Central Region with pre-release bedspace shortfalls
increasing from 61 to 82 beds.
Table 5.1-12 Projected Women Bedspaces by Region in 2020 – Proposed Classification
Facility

Essex

Current
Female
Beds

2015
CMP Female
CMP Capacity Projected
Capacity to
Females
Female Beds
2015 Females
Needed

2020 Female Bedspace Shortfall
based on CMP Capacity

2020 Projected Female Beds Needed

Secure
Beds

Pre-release
beds

DOC Stepdown / Pre- Total Beds
release

Secure
Beds

Pre-release +
Total Beds
Step-down

2020 Female Bedspace Shortfall
based on Potential Capacity
Secure
Beds

Pre-release +
Total Beds
Step-down

24

24

226

(202)

225

38

8

271

(225)

(22)

(247)

(225)

(22)

(247)

Suffolk
Northeast Region

215
239

110
134

177
402

(67)
(268)

148
373

22
60

7
15

177
447

(38)
(263)

(29)
(50)

(67)
(313)

38
(187)

(29)
(50)

9
(237)

Middlesex
Norfolk
Worcester
Central Region
Barnstable
Bristol
Dukes
Nantucket
Plymouth
Southeast Region
Berkshire
Franklin
Hampden
Hampshire
West Region
Subtotal Sheriffs
MCI Framingham
South Middlesex
DOC
TOTAL System

0
0
0
0
72
134
0
0
0
206
71
6
230
6
313
758
696
186
882

0
0
0
0
48
40
0
0
0
88
64
6
240
8
318
540
400
155
555

145
73
130
349
52
130
0
0
65
247
39
10
203
8
260
1,258
397
0
397

(145)
(73)
(130)
(349)
(4)
(90)
0
0
(65)
(159)
25
(4)
37
(0)
58
(718)
3
155
158

136
67
121
323
52
119
0
0
56
227
32
12
175
8
228
1,151
290
0
290

23
13
16
52
8
17
0
0
11
36
6
0
30
1
38
186

13
4
14
30
1
2
0
0
5
8
0
0
1
0
1
54
3

0

3

171
84
150
406
61
139
0
0
71
271
39
12
207
9
266
1,390
292
0
292

1,640

1,095

1,656

(561)

1,440

186

57

1,682

(136)
(67)
(121)
(323)
(4)
(79)
0
0
(56)
(139)
32
(6)
17
0
42
(683)
108
3
110
(572)

(36)
(17)
(30)
(82)
(9)
(19)
0
0
(16)
(44)
(6)
0
17
(1)
9
(167)
0
152
152
(15)

(171)
(84)
(150)
(406)
(13)
(99)
0
0
(71)
(183)
25
(6)
33
(1)
52
(850)
108
155
263
(587)

(136)
(67)
(121)
(323)
12
(79)
0
0
(56)
(123)
40
(6)
17
0
50
(583)
140
3
142
(440)

(36)
(17)
(30)
(82)
(9)
(19)
0
0
(16)
(44)
(6)
0
17
(1)
9
(167)
0
184
184
17

(171)
(84)
(150)
(406)
3
(99)
0
0
(71)
(167)
33
(6)
33
(1)
60
(750)
140
187
327
(423)

Several key observations can be made based on Tables 5.1-11 and 5.1-12:


Based on the CMP Baseline Capacity, a 561 female bedspace shortfall is anticipated by 2015. If no
legislative or policy changes are implemented by 2020, the shortfall is expected to grow to approximately
587 (604 if civil commits remain), an additional 43 bedspaces. With targeted Potential Capacity
improvements, this need can potentially be reduced by approximately 164 beds as follows:
o Northeast Region: 76 beds (Suffolk)
o West Region: 8 beds (Berkshire)
o Central Region: 16 beds (Barnstable)
o DOC: 64 beds (MCI Framingham/ SMCC)



The Northeast Region has the largest need for female bedspaces, followed by the Central Region,
Southeast Region, and West Region. However, the range in need is fairly evenly spread among the 4
regions, with the greatest difference between the Northeast and West Regions with bedspace needs
ranging from 437 / 447 beds to 266 beds.



Although the bedspace need is fairly evenly distributed, the „four region approach plus DOC‟ results in
unutilized women bedspace capacity at two of the most developed existing women programs in the
Corrections System, notably MCI Framingham/SMCC and the WMRWC in Hampden County.

- 97 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5



Pre-release combined with DOC step-down bedspaces, totaling 202-242 beds, can reduce the need for
secure beds and can be provided outside the secure perimeter in less costly and potentially leased facilities.
Of note, is the reduction of DOC secure bedspace need, increasing the surplus to 246 at MCI Framingham/
SMCC (CMP Baseline Capacity) and to 310 with potential capacity improvements.



The largest shortfalls for pre-release and secure beds occur in Sheriff departments in the Central Region
where there are no existing Sheriff women facilities. The existing DOC women facilities at MCI
Framingham/SMCC which are located in the Central Region would have unutilized capacity if most of the
county women are relocated to their counties of origin. Given that these DOC facilities are located in the
Central Region, it would be wise to use the unused capacity and existing programs to meet some of the
women bedspaces needs of the adjacent Sheriff departments which have no existing facilities for women.
However, the continued use of MCI Framingham as a regional center for women in the Central region would
require addressing current operational issues, program spaces and support functions.



The Western MA Regional Women‟s Correctional Center also has a strong existing women‟s program with
unutilized capacity. Worcester Sheriff department has no women bedspace capacity, is adjacent to the West
Region, and can benefit from the Hampden facility‟s existing program.



Most of the existing CMP Baseline Capacity secure beds for women in the East are located in Suffolk
County. Additionally, the Suffolk facility is centrally located with access from many locations, occasionally
has held women from other counties, and has an existing women‟s program with commitment and expertise
in addressing the needs of women. Adding new bedspaces could enable the relocation of other eastern
women into a regional center.



All regions lack pre-release bedspaces for women. The range of pre-release bedspace shortfalls as a result
of current and proposed classification systems is as follows:
o Northeast Region: 40 to 50 beds
o Southeast Region:
39-44 beds
o Central Region:
61 to 82 beds
o West Region:
9-10 bed surplus



There are few identified opportunities to increase capacity with targeted improvements in the existing
women facilities, requiring the addition of new bedspaces, especially pre-release beds.

Components of the Recommended Plan
The recommended plan for women focuses on a strategy that identifies the first steps / projects and outlines longer
range initiatives. The Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide that is revisited and updated at intervals as
sentencing reforms are implemented, policies are updated to reflect the most current practices in corrections and as
the integration of the Corrections System advances over time. The recommended plan for women is based upon the
following critical assumptions:
1. The historical rate of incarceration for women reflected in the projections above will continue without
significant policy intervention. This presents a “worst-case” scenario that can be improved with
recommended legislative changes that could reduce the rate and number of incarcerated women (and men).
2. The CMP recommends and assumes that federal inmates will be removed from Sheriff facilities over time.
As several new federal facilities have recently been built in the New England region and the federal

- 98 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

government is undergoing policy changes that could also reduce the need, beginning to reduce the system‟s
dependence on this revenue and to focus on current overcrowding across the system is advisable.
3. Civil commitments (Section 35 Alcohol & Substance Abuse) will be relocated to a more appropriate agency.
Based on the CMP Goals, Population Projections, and the CMP Baseline Capacities of existing facilities, the CMP
takes a regional approach for Women Offenders. With the female incarcerated population is expected to decline in
many counties and the DOC as is evidenced in the small increase in bedspace need of 26 (43 including civil
commitments) from 2015 to 2020, building in flexibility to meet the changing demands will be critical. As previously
discussed, this approach allows the achievement of the CMP Goals in the most cost-effective manner; building on
the current system‟s existing multi-jurisdictional facilities and expanding on the current expertise in the system.
This approach can be summarized as follows:
1. First priority is the relocation of pretrial and county-sentenced female offenders from MCI Framingham /
SMCC to facilities as close as possible to their county of origin into regional facilities to mitigate
overcrowding while facilitating the reintegration of women offenders into their communities.
2. Although the goal to relocate the pretrial and county-sentenced women from MCI Framingham, the
development of women regional facilities elsewhere must occur first.
3. Additional capacity beyond the first phase of projects will be required and should be provided in regional
facilities either located on new sites or as expansions on existing sites.
4. With fewer women incarcerated and more aggressive pre-release programs, women secure bedspace
needs are expected to decrease gradually between now and 2020. The development or leasing of prerelease facilities should be considered to support the step-down process further and make additional secure
bedspaces available to avoid overbuilding secure bedspaces as the bedspace needs shift. Critical
discussions between the Sheriffs and DOC are required to determine criteria for step-down eligibility. The
more extensive use of electronic bracelets and other incarceration alternatives should also be explored to
reduce the number of pre-release beds needed.
5. Female inmates in Sheriff department facilities with small female populations should be considered for
consolidation into larger correctional units in neighboring communities, sized to support rehabilitation and
provide more services in a more cost-effective manner. Resulting vacancies at individual sheriff facilities
should be made available to address male overcrowding on a regional basis.
6. Routine and acute care medical and mental health care bedspaces at each women‟s facility should be
assessed and expanded if required to accommodate projected populations. As women must be segregated
from men even in specialized facilities, the expansion of specialized sub-acute medical and mental health
care bedspaces could be addressed at women‟s regional facilities and/or provided at DOC centralized
facilities discussed later. These bedspaces have not been extracted from the bedspace needs in each
region in the tables. Should these bedspaces be located in specialized regional facilities, the bedspace
needs at regional women‟s centers will decrease. A more detailed, clinically based needs assessment is
required to determine the actual sub-acute medical and mental health bedspace needs before a
determination can be made regarding the best location for these bedspaces.

- 99 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Based on the four region analysis previously presented, the regions have been redrawn for women‟s facilities in order
to create a critical mass and efficiency that can better utilize existing programs and support services while keeping
women as close to their communities as possible. Each of these women‟s regions, East Region, West Region and
Central Region, are centered on existing women‟s programs. The focus of the women‟s plan will be to expand these
facilities into regional centers that can serve as a base for women‟s programs in each region. Table 5.1-13
summarizes the Women‟s Plan based on the current DOC classification system and illustrating the redrawn regions.
Table 5.1-13 Women‟s Plan for 2020 – Current Classification
Female Bedspace Plan 2020
Female Potential
2020 Projected Female Beds
Female Existing
Female New
CMP
Capacity
Needed
Bedspace
Bedspaces
CMP
Female
Total
Capacity
Capacity
PrePrePrePrePreMed &
Beds
Females
to 2015
Secure release Total
Secure release Total Secure release
Total Secure release Total Secure release +
MH
Females
Beds + Step- Beds
Beds + Step- Beds Beds + StepBeds Beds + Step- Beds Beds
StepBeds
down
down
down
down
down
2015 Projected Female
Beds Needed

Women Facilities

EAST REGION
Essex
Suffolk
Plymouth
Barnstable
Dukes
Nantucket
Subtotals
Eastern MA Regional
Women's Correctional
Center (EMRWCC)
Essex Pre-release
Suffolk Pre-release
Plymouth Pre-release
Barnstable County
Correctional Facility
Dukes Co.
Nantucket Co.
East Region Subtotal

24
110
0
48

195
157
55
46

32
21
11
6

227
178
66
52

(203)
(68)
(66)
(4)

0
186
0
64

24
0
0
0

24
186
0
64

217
143
54
50

40
24
12
8

8
5
2
2

265
172
68
61

182

453

70

523

(341)

250

24

274

463

85

17

565

110

407

407

(297)

(15)

413

32
21
11

32
21
11

(8)
(21)
(11)

24

24

64

64

50

8

(2)

59

88

274

0
0
463

0
0
85

0
0
(17)

0
0
548

31
12
169
7
116
336

6
0
31
1
20
58

1
0
6
0
4
12

39
12
206
9
141
406

31

(11)

316

24

186

186

413

186

40
24
12

40
24
12

186

227

24

24

54

10

64

240

34

274

227

192

48

240

94

48

46

6

52

(4)

0
0
182

0
0
453

0
0
70

0
0
523

0
0
(341)

186

64
6
240
8
0
318

33
10
176
7
118
344

6
0
27
1
14
48

39
10
203
8
132
392

25
(4)
37
(0)
(132)
(74)

72
6
192
8
0
278

48

72
6
240
8
0
326

240

294

27

322

(82)

192

48

240

286

14

14

(14)

64

50

7

57

7

72

50

7

(2)

58

60

12

72

48

312

336

58

(12)

394

252

60

312

432
187

1

24

187

27
18
14
60

5
4
2
36

331
0
162
137
81
711

(36)

616

413
16
24
12

52

Notes

Houses Essex, Suffolk, and Plymouth
pretrial & sentenced women except prerelease; Potential Capacity
improvements also required

40 Expand Essex Pre-release Program
24 New or leased pre-release facility
12 New or leased pre-release facility
Potential Capacity improvements
64 required; possibly accommodate
women from Dukes & Nantucket
Existing facilites to remain as is
Existing facilites to remain as is
553 Does not include Dukes & Nantucket

WEST REGION
Berkshire
Franklin
Hampden
Hampshire
Worcester
Subtotals
Western MA Regional
Women's Correctional
Center (WMRWCC)
Worcester Pre-release
Berkshire Co. Jail / HOC

48

20
72

Hampshire & Franklin
County Jail & HOC

14

West Region Subtotal

318

344

48

393

(75)

264

CENTRAL REGION
MCI Framingham
South Middlesex CC
Middlesex
Bristol
Norfolk
Subtotals

400
155
0
40
0
595

389
0
126
115
62
691

1
0
21
15
12
49

390
0
147
130
74
741

10
155
(147)
(90)
(74)
(146)

432

472

187

659

305
0
131
115
64
616

MCI Framingham /SMCC

555

691

691

(136)

432

187

619

616

34

34

(34)

15

15

25

49 741
167 1656

(146)
(561)

Central Region
System Totals

40
595
1095

20

42

House DOC, Middlesex, Bristol and
619 Norfolk pretrial and sentenced women;
no pre-release
New or leased pre-release facility for
42 DOC, Middlesex and Norfolk

20

14

Central MA Women's Prerelease
Bristol County Jail / HOC*

20

Houses Hampden and Worcester
pretrial and sentenced women except
for Worcester pre-release. New prerelease facility in Worcester.
20 New or leased pre-release facility
Houses women Berkshire, Franklin,
72 and Hampshire women; potential
capacity improvements req'd
Hampshire & Franklin women to
Berkshire; exist. women beds to be
reassigned to men.
425
334

691
1488

40

40

40
432
1000

40

227 659
259 1259

616
1415

42

42

18

18

60
202

(36) 675
66 1682

619

619
1111

94

619

40

40

40
134

659
1245

0
321

42
114

Existing beds converted for pre40 release; Pre-trial and sentenced
housed at SMCC
701
1679

Notes: SMCC ADP is included in MCI Framingham ADP; Med & MH beds are deducted from secure beds only

- 100 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Table 5.1-14 summarizes the Women‟s Plan, based on the proposed DOC step-down classification.
Table 5.1-14 Women‟s Plan for 2020 – Proposed Classification
Female Bedspace Plan 2020
Female Potential
2020 Projected Female Beds
CMP
Female Existing
Female New
Capacity
Needed
CMP
Female
Bedspace
Bedspaces
Capacity
Capacity
PrePrePrePrePreTotal
Med &
Females
to 2015
Secure release Total
Secure release Total Secure release
Total Secure release Total Secure release + Beds
MH
Females
Beds + Step- Beds
Beds + Step- Beds Beds + StepBeds Beds + Step- Beds Beds
StepBeds
down
down
down
down
down
2015 Projected Female
Beds Needed

Women Facilities

EAST REGION
Essex
Suffolk
Plymouth
Barnstable
Dukes
Nantucket
Subtotals
Eastern MA Regional
Women's Correctional
Center (EMRWCC)
Essex Pre-release
Suffolk Pre-release
Plymouth Pre-release
Barnstable County
Correctional Facility
Dukes Co.
Nantucket Co.
East Region Subtotal

24
110
0
48

195
157
55
46

35
23
12
7

230
180
68
52

(206)
(70)
(68)
(4)

182

453

77

530

(348)

110

407

407

(297)

35
23
12

35
23
12

(11)
(23)
(12)

24

24

64

64

50

9

(2)

59

274

0
0
462

0
0
99

(18)

0
0
561

31
12
169
7
116
335

6
0
31
1
30
69

1
0
6
0
5
13

39
12
207
9
150
417

31

(11)

316

24

186

24

24
186

64

250

24

186

64

216
142
53
50

46
29
16
9

8
6
2
2

271
177
71
61

274

462

99

18

579

(16)

412

186

412

186

46
29
16

46
29
16

186
24

24

54

10

64

240

34

274

226

192

48

240

93

48

46

7

52

(4)

0
0
182

0
0
453

0
0
77

0
0
530

0
0
(348)

186

64
6
240
8
0
318

33
10
176
7
118
344

6
0
27
1
19
53

39
10
204
8
137
398

25
(4)
36
(0)
(137)
(80)

72
6
192
8
0
278

48

72
6
240
8
0
326

240

294

27

322

(82)

192

48

240

285

19

19

(19)

64

50

7

57

7

72

50

8

(2)

58

60

12

72

(80)

48

312

335

69

(13)

404

252

60

312

432
187

268

3

22

292

187

36
19
17
75

6
4
3
34

171
139
84
686

(34)

577

88

226

412
22
29
16

Notes

Houses Essex, Suffolk, and Plymouth
pretrial & sentenced women except prerelease; Potential Capacity
improvements also required

46 Expand Essex Pre-release Program
29 New or leased pre-release facility
16 New or leased pre-release facility
Potential Capacity improvements
64 required; possibly accommodate
women from Dukes & Nantucket
Existing facilites to remain as is
Existing facilites to remain as is

66

566 Does not include Dukes & Nantucket #'s

30

Houses Hampden and Worcester
333 pretrial and sentenced women except
for Worcester prelease.
facility possibly
30 New
New pre-release
or leased pre-release
facilityin

30

Houses women Berkshire, Franklin,
72 and Hampshire women; potential
capacity improvements req'd
Hampshire & Franklin women to
Berkshire; exist. women beds to be
reassigned to men.
435

WEST REGION
Berkshire
Franklin
Hampden
Hampshire
Worcester
Subtotals
Western MA Regional
Women's Correctional
Center (WMRWCC)
Worcester Pre-release
Berkshire Co. Jail / HOC

48

30
72

Hampshire & Franklin
County Jail & HOC

14

West Region Subtotal

318

344

53

398

CENTRAL REGION
MCI Framingham
South Middlesex CC

400
155

367
0

3
0

371
0

29
155

Middlesex
Bristol
Norfolk
Subtotals

0
40
0
595

126
115
62
670

26
16
13
58

152
131
75
728

(152)
(91)
(75)
(133)

472

187

659

130
115
64
577

555

670

670

(115)

432

187

619

577

42

42

(42)

16

16

24

58 728
189 1656

(133)
(561)

MCI Framingham /SMCC

14

Central MA Women's Prerelease
Bristol County Jail / HOC*
Central Region
System Totals

40
595
1095

30

670
1467

264
432

40

40

40
432
1000

40

227 659
259 1259

577
1374

55

55

19

19

75
242

(34) 652
66 1682

619

93

619
55

619
1111

40

40

40
134

659
1245

0
319

55
151

House DOC, Middlesex, Bristol and
619 Norfolk pretrial and sentenced women;
no pre-release
New or leased pre-release facility for
55 DOC, Middlesex and Norfolk
Existing beds converted for pre40 release; Pre-trial and sentenced
housed at SMCC
714
1715

Notes: SMCC ADP is included in MCI Framingham ADP; Med & MH beds are deducted from secure beds only

Observations on each region as illustrated in Table 5.1-13 and 5.1-14 are as follows:
Women‟s East Region: (Essex, Suffolk, Plymouth, Barnstable, Dukes and Nantucket Sheriff departments)
The East Region‟s bedspace needs will total approx. 523-530 by 2015 and approx. 565-579 bedspaces by 2020,
including DOC step-down and sub-acute medical and mental health bedspaces.
- 101 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

This translates to a shortfall of approx. 341-348 bedspaces by 2015. With potential capacity improvements, the 2015
shortfall can possibly be reduced by approx. 92 beds to 249-256. However, by 2020, the shortfall increases to
approx. 291-305 beds even with potential capacity improvements.
With an established women‟s program, the Suffolk County HOC should be considered for expansion as a Eastern
MA Regional Women‟s Correctional Center (EMRWCC) to house pretrial and sentenced women from the eastern
portion of the State. Expansion of the 186 Potential Capacity women bedspaces to gain 300 additional bedspaces by
eliminating I.C.E. (federal) detainees currently housed in the modular building #8 was initially considered but was
proven to be unviable due its unsuitable configuration for housing women, limited ability to accommodate
classification needs, lack of program spaces and inadequate support spaces (intake, kitchen, infirmary, etc.). In order
to create the multi-jurisdictional EMRWCC to house 2020 projected county-sentenced and pretrial women from
Essex, Suffolk, and Plymouth counties, a more sizable expansion would be required. Although creating the
EMRWCC remains a goal in the CMP, additional studies to determine the site‟s capacity for expansion including a
traffic and parking study are recommended, in addition to the consideration of other options to house women from the
East Region including a reduced program.
The Barnstable County Correctional Facility should continue to house women from Barnstable as their potential
capacity aligns with their projected population. In fact, the Barnstable County Correctional Facility could also house
women from Nantucket and Dukes, becoming a „Cape and the Islands‟ regional facility for women. As will be the
case for all shared or multi-jurisdictional facilities, formalized agreements between Sheriff departments will be
required.
Approximately 77-90 pre-release /step-down bedspaces for women from Essex, Suffolk, and Plymouth counties are
projected for 2020. With 24 beds at Essex WIT, the shortfall for Essex will be approximately 16-22 beds. Expansion
of the current program will require the addition of another leased facility or the relocation of the current program to a
facility that can accommodate the total need. New women‟s pre-release facilities will be needed in Suffolk and
Plymouth counties.
Based on early estimates, approximately 18 of these bedspaces should be sub-acute medical and mental health
bedspaces. These long term care bedspaces have been disaggregated but have not been deducted from the
bedspace calculations for the women‟s regional center. Should these sub-acute bedspaces be included in a
specialized facility, the total bedspaces required at the women‟s regional center be reduced accordingly. Infirmary or
acute care bedspaces, including detox beds, at the facility also need to be assessed.
Women‟s West Region: (Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire and Worcester)
The West Region will require approximately 392-398 total bedspaces by 2015 and approximately 406-417 bedspaces
by 2020.
This translates to a shortfall of approximately 74-80 by 2015. With potential capacity improvements, the 2015 shortfall
can be reduced by only 8 beds. By 2020, the shortfall increases to 80-91 even with targeted improvements.
In order to take advantage of the successful women‟s programming at the Western MA Regional Women‟s Center
(WMRWCC) in Hampden County, this facility should be expanded to house women from Hampden and Worcester
counties in addition to DOC women stepping-down to the West Region. Because program space for the future
addition of women bedspaces was built into the original project, minimal additional programming space is anticipated
to be needed. As will be the case for all shared or multi-jurisdictional facilities, formalized agreements between
Sheriff departments will be required. Depending on specific expansion capabilities on the site, this regional center

- 102 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

could be expanded to include additional beds to further consolidate women from the western counties in order to
provide more cost-effective programming. Existing bedspaces at other locations could be repurposed to house men.
Alternatively, the Berkshire County Jail and HOC could continue to house women from Berkshire County and could
also house women from Franklin and Hampshire counties even without potential capacity improvements. Because of
the small women populations in Franklin and Hampshire, combining them in either Berkshire or Hampden facilities
can provide more cost-effective programming and result in better utilization of those facilities for male offenders.
Pre-release bedspaces at WMRWCC are adequate to house projected Hampden County women including DOC
step-down. In fact, a surplus of 17 existing pre-release bedspaces is anticipated. Because this surplus is not
adequate to house all Worcester pre-release and is too remotely located to provide reintegration into their
community, a new pre-release facility will be needed in Worcester County. Utilization of these additional pre-release
beds by other women from the West Region should be considered.
Based on early estimates, approximately 13 of these bedspaces should be sub-acute medical and mental health
bedspaces. These long term care bedspaces have been disaggregated but have not been deducted from the
bedspace calculations for the women‟s regional center. Should these sub-acute bedspaces be included in a
specialized facility, the total bedspaces required at the women‟s regional center be reduced accordingly. Infirmary or
acute care bedspaces, including detox beds, at the facility also need to be assessed.
Women‟s Central Region: (DOC, Middlesex, Bristol and Norfolk)
The Central Region will require approximately 728-741 total bedspaces by 2015 and 683-711 total bedspaces
(excluding civil commitments) by 2020.
This translates to a shortfall of approximately 133-146 by 2015. With potential capacity improvements, the 2015
shortfall can be reduced by 74 beds to a shortfall of 59-72. However, by 2020 the shortfall is expected to decrease to
27– 52 with potential capacity improvements (43-69 if civil commitments remain).
The Central Region includes MCI Framingham / SMCC in order to utilize its current programs and otherwise surplus
of bedspaces resulting from relocating most county women to Sheriff facilities. MCI Framingham/SMCC could be
expanded into a Central MA Regional Women‟s Correctional Center and continue to function as a multi-jurisdictional
facility with DOC women and women from Middlesex, Norfolk and Bristol counties, assuming the utilization of SMCC
for sentenced women. In fact, the CMP recommends a small scale master plan study for MCI Framingham / SMCC in
order to prioritize facility improvements and develop an appropriate programmatic plan to address the Central
Region‟s female population‟s needs. Expansion capacity is to be evaluated and may result in the housing of some
women from the East Region.
As previously mentioned, regions were redrawn for women‟s facilities in order to create a critical mass and efficiency
that can better utilize existing programs and support services while keeping women as close to their communities as
possible, assigning Bristol to the Central Region. The Bristol County Jail/HOC can house only pre-release or pretrial
women with its reduced CMP Baseline Capacity due to lack of dayroom space, unencumbered sleeping space and
plumbing fixture counts. A new Central MA Women‟s pre-release facility will be needed for Middlesex and Norfolk
women to house approx. 41-53 women by 2020.
Based on early estimates, approximately 36 of these bedspaces should be sub-acute medical and mental health
bedspaces. These long term care bedspaces have been disaggregated but have not been deducted from the
bedspace calculations for the women‟s regional center. Should these sub-acute bedspaces be included in a
specialized facility, the total bedspaces required at the women‟s regional center be reduced accordingly. Infirmary or
acute care bedspaces, including detox beds, at the facility also need to be assessed.
- 103 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Phasing of the Recommended Plan by Region
The consideration of potential capacity improvements and provision of pre-release beds on 2015 and 2020 bedspace
shortfalls can inform the order and type of beds that should be added in a phased plan. Although existing pre-release
beds inside the secure perimeter function well in most cases, providing new pre-release beds within the secure
perimeter does not take advantage of the reduced security related construction costs and operating costs.
Additionally, pre-release facilities outside of the secure perimeter offer a better transition into the community.
Long term, the CMP recommends that all new pre-release beds should be located outside of the secure perimeter
and with the use of more electronic monitoring, pre-release bedspace needs can be decreased to some extent.
However, the first phase build-out of secure beds could be designed to accommodate pre-release and secure bed
needs in 2015, anticipating the use of these beds as secure beds in 2020 with the addition of pre-release beds
outside the secure perimeter and the expanded use of electronic monitoring.
The first priority of the Women‟s Plan is to alleviate overcrowding at MCI Framingham and to more cost-effectively
provide better access to effective programs for women to reduce recidivism. This section considers possible options
for implementation. These options are presented to illustrate possible phasing. Final phasing will be determined as
a result of site capacity at particular sites, optimal operational efficiencies and funding availability.
Creation of women regional centers in the East and West Regions to allow for the relocation of women from MCI
Framingham /SMCC should be considered first. Expanding MCI Framingham while overcrowded will only exacerbate
current difficulties. Since the expansion of the WMRWCC is relatively straightforward because of the available site
and support spaces in place from an earlier phase to service an expansion, WMRWCC should be implemented first.
Studies on the expansion capacity of MCI Framingham/SMCC and site capacity traffic and parking studies at Suffolk
HOC must be initiated to determine the feasibility and cost for female bedspace expansions.
Although more cost-effective to build-out each of the Regional Women‟s Centers in full at each location, a phased
strategy may need to be considered. As projected bedspace needs do not account for the possible implementation of
sentencing law reforms and diversion programs, bedspace needs could be further reduced should these reforms
eventually be implemented. Therefore, the new bedspaces in the potential phasing options outlined below are the
„projected worst case scenario‟ and may not necessarily be the final capacity goal at each facility.
East Region:
Eastern MA Regional Women’s Correctional Center- Suffolk County: new bedspaces count varies
(Pretrial and sentenced women from Suffolk, Essex and Plymouth - excluding pre-release)
 2015 total bedspace need = approximately 471-498 (407 secure and 64-70 pre-release beds)
 2020 total bedspace need = approximately 518– 524 (413 secure; 77-90 pre-release;16 sub-acute beds)
In order to accommodate 2020 secure bedspace needs (excluding pre-release) for women from Essex, Suffolk and
Plymouth, an expansion of the EMRWCC should provide approximately 428 bedspaces total, or approximately 413
bedspaces if sub-acute medical and mental health bedspaces are provided in a separate specialized facility.
With potential capacity improvements yielding 186 existing bedspaces, secure bed shortfalls are anticipated to be
approximately 221 by 2015, growing to 227 by 2020, excluding women who could be assigned to a long-term subacute medical or mental health care facility.

- 104 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Pre-release Facilities in Suffolk, Essex, and Plymouth Counties: 40 - 66 new pre-release bedspaces
(Pre-release/ DOC step-down women from Suffolk, Essex and Plymouth women)
 2015 total bedspace need = approximately 64-70 pre-release beds
 2020 total bedspace need = approximately 77-90 pre-release beds
Essex County: The expansion of the Essex County pre-release facility or an additional facility to add 8-11 new
bedspaces by 2015 or 16-22 new bedspaces by 2020.
Suffolk County: 21-23 new bedspaces by 2015; 24-29 new bedspaces by 2020
Plymouth County: 11-12 new bedspaces by 2015; 12-16 new bedspaces by 2020
Build-out Scenario 1: Full build-out of Women’s Campus on the Suffolk HOC site - 425 total bedspaces (reallocating
186 existing bedspaces to men = net addition of 239 bedspaces on the site)
 Phase 1:
o The creation of a women‟s campus on the existing Suffolk County HOC site utilizes the existing
support spaces while also creating efficiencies by better segregating men and women. In order to
accommodate all the pre-trial and sentenced women from Suffolk, Essex, and Plymouth counties in
2020, the demolition or dismantling of the existing modular facility would be required to make room
for a new women‟s facility with approximately 425 bedspaces. These bedspaces could meet 2015‟s
need of 386 secure beds as well pre-release beds for Suffolk and Plymouth.
 The 186 existing women’s beds to be reallocated for men = net addition of 239 beds.
 Modular beds now used for housing I.C.E inmates totaling a CMP Baseline Capacity of 188
would be lost. Reuse of the modular elements on another site may be possible.
o Essex County„s pre-release program would be expanded to accommodate 8-11 additional women,
including DOC step-down.
 Phase 2:
o Pre-release facilities for Suffolk and Plymouth County women should be developed to
accommodate 24-29 and 12-16 women respectively. Plymouth pre-release women could also be
accommodated in the Bristol HOC outlined later in the section. The vacated bedspaces at
EMRWCC would accommodate growth in pretrial and sentenced women populations from Essex,
Suffolk, and Plymouth counties.
Build-out Scenario 2: Full build-out on a new site - 425 total bedspaces plus full support facilities
 Phase 1:
o This option would resemble option 1, except on a new site. Duplication of support spaces would be
required, expanding the program of spaces and increasing the cost.
o Essex County„s pre-release program would be expanded to accommodate 8-11 additional women,
including DOC step-down.
 Phase 2:
o Like Option 1, pre-release facilities for Suffolk and Plymouth County women should be developed
to accommodate 24-29 and 12-16 women respectively. The vacated bedspaces at the new
EMRWCC would accommodate growth in pretrial and sentenced women populations from Essex,
Suffolk, and Plymouth counties.

- 105 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Build-out Scenario 3: Modified Women’s program on current site
 Phase 1:
o This option would involve a reduced build-out on the Suffolk HOC site that would accommodate
Suffolk and either Essex or Plymouth pretrial and sentenced women. Further study is required to
determine how many additional bedspaces the site can accommodate, keeping the existing
modular facility in place. Possible programs could be as follows:
 To accommodate Suffolk and Essex sentenced and pretrial women (excluding prerelease) in 2015, 352 secure would be needed, increasing to approximately 360 secure
and by 2020 excluding sub-acute beds. Pre-release bedspace needs are estimated at
53-58 by 2015, increasing to 64-75 by 2020.
 Assuming that the current 186 bedspaces could continue to house women, this
would require 166 new secure bedspaces in 2015 or 172 in 2020.
 Pre-release facilities would be located in each county: Suffolk – 21-23 for 2015,
24-29 for 2020; Essex –expand existing 24 beds to 32-35 in 2015, 40-46 in 2020.
 To accommodate Suffolk and Plymouth sentenced and pretrial women (excluding prerelease) in 2015, 212 secure and 32-35 pre-release bedspaces would be needed,
decreasing to approximately 195 -198 secure and 36-45 pre-release bedspaces by 2020,
excluding sub-acute beds.
 Assuming that the current 186 bedspaces could continue to house women, this
would require 61 new bedspaces (26 secure + 32-35 pre-release) for 2015, or
45-57 new bedspaces (9-12 secure + 36-45 pre-release) in 2020.
 Depending on which option is feasible, either Essex or Plymouth pretrial and sentenced
women would need to be accommodated in an expanded MCI Framingham /SMCC.
 Alternatively, a pretrial unit could be added to Suffolk to handle pretrial women from all
three counties, locating sentenced women from either Essex or Plymouth at MCI
Framingham /SMCC. Detox and program and other support services would be expanded.
 2020 pretrial bedspace need for all 3 counties is estimated at 178. Suffolk‟s
sentenced bedspace need in 2020 is estimated at 73. With 186 existing
bedspaces possibly housing pretrial women, new sentenced beds could be
added.
 Pre-release facilities for each county (built or leased) would be provided outside
the secure perimeter; Essex (40-46) less 24 existing bedspaces; Suffolk (24-29);
Plymouth (12-16).
 The sentenced beds for Essex (134) and Plymouth (39) would be provided at
MCI Framingham/SMCC.
Barnstable County Correctional Facility: Potential Capacity Improvements
With potential capacity improvements increasing capacity to 64, the existing facility appears to have adequate
capacity for the 2015 projected need of 52 bedspaces (46 secure and 8 pre-release) and anticipated 2020 need for
61 bedspaces. Housing women from Nantucket County and/or Dukes County is also possible.
 Phase 1: Potential Capacity improvements to be implemented.
West Region:
Western MA Regional Women’s Correctional Center (WMRWCC): 93 - 106 new beds
(Pretrial and sentenced women from Hampden and Worcester only - excluding Worcester pre-release)
 2015 total bedspace need = approximately 335-341 (294 secure and 41-46 pre-release beds)
 2020 total bedspace need = approximately 347- 357 (285 secure; 51-61 pre-release;13 sub-acute beds)

- 106 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

In order to accommodate 2020 secure bedspace needs (excluding pre-release) for women from Hampden and
Worcester, an expansion of the WMRWCC should provide approximately 298 secure bedspaces, or approximately
285 secure bedspaces if sub-acute medical and mental health bedspaces are provided in a separate specialized
facility, in addition to 31 pre-release beds for Hampden women.
With a CMP Baseline capacity of 240 (192 secure and 48 pre-release), 102 new secure bedspaces for 2015 are
needed to house Hampden and Worcester women. For 2020, 106 new secure bedspaces in 2020 if sub-acute
bedspaces are not deducted. The existing pre-release beds are adequate for Hampden women including DOC stepdown, with approximately 17 surplus bedspaces.
Alternatively, additional beds could be provided in the WMRWCC to house more women from other western counties,
should there be adequate support services and operational efficiencies.
Worcester Pre-release: 22- 40 new beds
Pre-release bedspaces for Worcester women should be provided in Worcester County. By 2015 the need is expected
to be between 14 -19, growing to 20-30 by 2020.
Full Build-out for Hampden and Worcester
 Phase 1:
o By adding approximately 106 new secure bedspaces, the secure bedspace needs for Hampden
and Worcester for 2015 and 2020 will be met. (Franklin and Hampshire women could also be
housed here as one option.)
o The existing 48 pre-release bedspaces can house Hampden (27) and Worcester (14-19) prerelease women for 2015.
 Phase 2:
o A Worcester Pre-release facility would be developed for approximately 20-30 women.
Berkshire County Jail/HOC: Potential Capacity Improvements
The existing facility‟s 64 bedspaces is more than adequate for the 2015 and 2020 projected need of 39 bedspaces
(33 secure and 6 pre-release). In fact, as one option, this facility appears to have adequate bedspaces for Hampshire
(9) and Franklin (12) pretrial and sentenced women in 2020 even without potential capacity improvements.
Alternatively, women could be housed in the WMRWCC and some or all of these beds could be repurposed for men.
Hampshire and Franklin County Jail & HOC: repurpose beds for general custody men
Central Region:
MCI Framingham /SMCC as Central MA. Regional Women’s Correctional Center (CMRWCC): bedspace varies
(Pretrial and sentenced women from the DOC, Middlesex, Bristol and Norfolk - excluding pre-release)
 2015 total bedspace need = approximately 728 -741 (670- 691 secure and 49-58 pre-release beds)
 2020 total bedspace need = approximately 686-711 (577- 616 secure; 60-75 pre-release; 34-36 sub-acute)
702- 728 (593- 632 secure) if civil commitments remain
In order to create a Central MA Regional Women‟s Correctional Center at MCI Framingham/SMCC to accommodate
2020 secure bedspace needs (excluding pre-release) for women from the DOC, Middlesex, Bristol and Norfolk,
potential capacity improvements and improvements to allow use of SMCC as a secure facility will be required. The
555 CMP Baseline Capacity bedspaces can be increased to 619, resulting in a shortfall of 51-72 secure bedspaces
by 2015. However, with populations expected to decline, there would be surplus secure bedspaces by 2020;

- 107 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

however, a shortfall is estimated at 27-52 if sub-acute medical and mental health bedspaces are included (increasing
to 43-69 if civil commitments remain).
Central MA Women’s Pre-release Facility: 42-55 new beds
A total of 34-42 pre-release bedspaces for women from Middlesex, Norfolk, and the DOC should be provided by
2015, increasing to 42-55 bedspaces by 2020.
Bristol Jail / HOC: Possible Potential Capacity improvements
(Bristol County Women Pre-release beds)
As the Bristol Jail/HOC 40 CMP Baseline Capacity women‟s bedspaces were reduced due to dayroom and plumbing
fixture counts, the existing bedspaces can be utilized to meet the pre-release bedspace needs of Bristol totaling 16 in
2015 and 18-19 in 2020.
OPTION 1: MCI Framingham/SMCC as the Central MA Regional Women’s Correctional Center
 Phase 1:
o Implementation of potential capacity improvements at MCI Framingham / SMCC yielding 619 beds
and the addition of 51-72 bedspaces (totaling 670-691) could house DOC women and pretrial and
sentenced women from Middlesex, Norfolk and Bristol counties, excluding pre-release women for
2015.
o The Bristol Jail/HOC 40 CMP Baseline Capacity women‟s bedspaces would house Bristol prerelease women and possibly Plymouth pre-release women.
o A new Central MA Pre-release Facility should be brought online to house 34-42 pre-release
women from DOC, Middlesex and Norfolk counties.
 Phase 2:
o With a reduced need of 577- 616 secure bedspaces at MCI Framingham/SMCC (without civil
commitments), a unit of approximately 76-93 bedspaces could be converted into sub-acute
bedspaces to serve women from across the State. Alternatively the surplus bedspaces could
accommodate women from Plymouth should the expansion of EMRWCC not be large enough.
o The Central MA pre-release facility for Middlesex, Norfolk and DOC women could be expanded to
house approx. 42-56 pre-release women for 2020.
Utilization of SMCC as a secure bed facility needs to be evaluated in order to determine the feasibility of the options
for the Central Region. A comprehensive study for the MCI Framingham/SMCC campus is needed to determine how
to best utilize existing structures to meet the needs of the women inmate population and to determine the feasibility of
adding capacity to this site.
All options are starting points that must be evaluated for feasibility. As an option is evaluated for feasibility, bedspace
count, support and program spaces must be examined. New bedspaces may require new sites/locations or may be
expansions of existing facilities. Handicapped accessibility in bedspaces, plumbing fixtures and programs must be
assessed at every facility. In considering options to implement for all regions, operational funding must be
considered. The development of these regional faciliites will require formal agreements between stakeholders and
appropriate operating funding adjustments.
The goal for women is to provide facilities each serving an appropriate number of women to enable cost-effective
programming while maintaining proximity to their homes and utilizing existing women facilities to the best potential.
Factoring in the needs of the male population at sites housing both men and women must be considered and could
result in the conversion of some beds for men as women are reassigned to other facilties.

- 108 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Figure 5.1-1 demonstrates the potential location of women‟s bedspaces by 2020 as recommended above. New sites
/locations for new facilities are to be determined, as required.
Figure 5.1-1 Proposed Location of Women‟s Bedspaces

- 109 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

MEDICAL POPULATION
In the context of the CMP Special Custody populations, the medical population refers to housing units required for
sub-acute (long-term ambulatory care) in addition to acute beds (generally short-term crisis care). Clinics and
ambulatory care services provided routinely to the general population require space but not necessarily bedspace
and are not included in this discussion on bedspaces but will be evaluated in a separate Needs Assessment study.
For the purposes of this study, acute care beds are short-term crisis care that are managed as temporary
bedspaces. An acute care setting is similar to a primary care community hospital with a range of surgical and postoperative services. Licensed physicians, nurses, and other medical staff should be present on a 24-hour basis in
acute care facilities. Inmate patients are expected to return to the permanent housing upon recovery. Acute beds can
include hospital beds as well as on-site infirmaries although they typically handle acute care needs of a lesser
magnitude than in a hospital setting and are frequently not staffed with medical personnel on a 24-hour basis.
Detoxification beds, on-site medical and mental health observation, and medical isolation associated with infirmaries
are also considered acute care beds.
Typically, sub-acute care facilities are similar to assisted-living environments with limited availability of skilled
nursing beds. These bedspaces are for long term care provided to chronically ill, disabled, or elderly inmates
requiring ongoing assistance with activities of daily living (ADL‟s). These inmates classified as sub-acute or long-term
patients are typically not suitable to be housed in the general population due to their vulnerability and the
disproportionate consumption of staff resources they require. Without sub-acute beds in the system, these chronically
ill inmates frequently occupy infirmary beds. This trend hampers the ability to provide appropriate acute care services
in the infirmaries and results in a lack of transition bedspaces for inmates returning from acute care.
The calculation of the number of beds by acuity levels for long term care in correctional settings is a survey driven
science typically accomplished with the aid of clinicians. This extensive undertaking was beyond the scope of the
CMP. However, for preliminary planning purposes, an estimation of medical population bedspace needs for the DOC
and Sheriffs‟ populations was generated utilizing benchmarks from other jurisdictions.
Prior to implementation of specific medical bedspace projects, a more in-depth needs assessment is required to
determine a more precise bedspace need and scope for medical population projects. Additionally, there is a wide
range of medical services provided on-site at the many Sheriff and DOC facilities. Consideration of the types of
spaces lacking at particular facilities and how they are a part of a larger health care delivery model should be
included in a Needs Assessment Study.
Planning Basis
Discussions were held with DOC medical staff to gain an understanding of the services currently offered and needed.
Medical care is provided by vendor contracts, on-site staff and off-site staff / facilities at different correctional facilities.
Acute Care
A CMP survey completed by the Sheriffs indicated that 9 of 13 Sheriff Departments used Shattuck for inpatient
services in varying degrees in 2007. Of the approximately 980 reported annual hospital stays of Sheriff inmates in
2007, approximately 65% (or 637) were reported to have been in Shattuck. Additionally, Sheriff Departments‟ use of
local emergency rooms was estimated at approximately 1,260 trips in 2007. Transportation costs can become
prohibitive for Sheriffs farther away and explains why some Sheriffs do not use Shattuck more frequently. As a
separate analysis of Shattuck was underway within the context of a system-wide strategic master plan for the Health
- 110 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

and Human Services system in Massachusetts, a determination of where the acute care and outpatient services will
be provided was not included in the scope of this project. However, in the short term the CMP assumes that these
services will continue to be provided in a State-owned facility. A more focused Medical and Mental Health Needs
Assessment will identify the projected needs and investigate health care delivery models.
In addition to the Shattuck‟s 28 acute beds, several of the existing Sheriff and DOC facilities have infirmaries that
meet some of the less severe short-term acute care needs. Although the level of acute care in infirmaries, in most
cases, is very limited and not staffed to the level typical of acute care provided in a hospital setting, approximately
121 beds (89 male and 32 female) exist in DOC‟s infirmaries. Five Sheriff Departments reported having infirmaries
with bedspaces ranging from 3 to 45, collectively totaling 110. Although infirmary beds are used for multiple
purposes, additional medical observation beds, isolation cells and detox beds were reported in DOC and Sheriff
facilities and are summarized in Table 5.1-16. For planning purposes, acute care bedspace need is estimated at 1%
of the total population of the DOC and Sheriffs and include infirmaries, detoxification bedspaces, medical and mental
health observation, and Emergency Stabilization Units (ESU) bedspaces.
Sub- Acute Care
While determining how to best provide adequate acute care (on-site services and services in local hospitals) is a
critical component of the health care delivery system, a more immediate need in the Massachusetts Correction
System is the provision of sub-acute care beds for the medical populations. In the workshops held with stakeholders
and during site visits to facilities, the lack of sub-acute medical and mental health beds was repeatedly reported. In
fact, there were only 13 beds identified for long-term care (ADL‟s) in 2007 and plans for increasing these bedspaces
were underway during the course of this study. These are long-term bedspaces that in most cases serve as
permanent housing and will require access to all programs typically provided to the general population.
As noted, an accurate accounting of the acuity levels is best accomplished through a series of inmate and staff
interviews. Lacking a scientific accounting of the DOC population, the results of a recent acuity level survey of the
California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was used to estimate the potential need in
Massachusetts. The CDCR study verified that at any given time, approximately 3-4% of the sentenced prison
population have a long-term medical condition requiring separation from the general population. For the CMP, subacute medical bedspace need was estimated at 3.5% of the DOC’s total population.
While obtaining data is difficult at the DOC level, reliable acuity level analysis is non-existent at the county level.
However, from conversations with Massachusetts Sheriff staff, public health and private correctional health care
providers and observations in other counties, an estimate was developed of 1.0-2.0% of the county-sentenced
population is typically ill or physically challenged to a level that would suggest separate living conditions. For the
CMP, sub-acute medical bedspace need was estimated at 1.5% of the Sheriff’s total population.
Based on these ranges, the number of acute and sub-acute bedspaces for 2020 with populations are assigned to
their appropriate jurisdictions (not where they are currently housed) and are summarized in Table 5.1-15.
Table 5.1-15 Estimate of 2020 Acute and Long-Term Medical Beds by Current Jurisdictions
Medical
excluding civil commitments

Acute Care
Beds Needed

Sheriffs
DOC
Combined Total Medical Bedspaces

155
115
270

Sub-Acute
Care Beds
Needed

Total Medical
Beds Needed

232
404
635

387
519
905

Source: National Benchmarks applied to DOC and County projections
Note: Acute care needs based on 1.0% of the projected DOC and Sheriff inmate population.
DOC sub-acute needs based on 3.5% of population; Sheriffs 1.5% of population.

- 111 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Table 5.1-16 illustrates existing (2007) medical bedspaces (as reported in surveys) and projected needs by region,
considering current and proposed classification systems.
Table 5.1-16 Medical Bedspace by Region – Men and Women
Existing Beds
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Infirmary
Beds

Essex County Correctional Alternative Center
Essex County Correctional Facility
Essex W.I.T
Suffolk County HOC
Suffolk County Jail
Lemuel Shattuck Hospital
Boston Pre-Release Center
Northeast Region Existing Beds
Northeast Region Bed Needs - Current Classification
Northeast Region Bed Needs - Proposed Classification
Middlesex County House of Correction
Middlesex County Jail
Norfolk County Correctional Center
Worcester County Jail and HOC
Bay State Correctional Center
MCI-Cedar Junction
Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center
MCI-Concord
MCI-Framingham
MCI-Norfolk
MCI-Shirley Medium
MCI-Shirley Minimum
North Central Correctional Institute- Medium
North Central Correctional Institute- Minimum
Northeastern Correctional Center
Pondville Correctional Center
South Middlesex Correctional Center
Central Region
Central Region Bed Needs - Current Classification
Central Region Bed Needs - Proposed Classification
Barnstable County Correctional Facility
Bristol County Jail & HOC (Ash Street)
Dukes County Jail and HOC
Plymouth County Correctional Facility
Bridgewater State Hospital
Massachusetts Alcohol and Substance Abuse Center
Massachusetts Treatment Center
MCI-Plymouth
Old Colony Correctional Center Medium
Old Colony Correctional Center Minimum
Southeast Region
Southeast Region Bed Needs - Current Classification
Southeast Region Bed Needs - Proposed Classification
Berkshire County Jail and HOC
Franklin County Jail and HOC
Hampden Co. Correctional Alcohol Center (WMCAC)
Hampden County Jail and HOC @ Stony Brook
Hampden County Correctional Women Center
Hampshire County Jail and HOC
West Region
WestRegion Bed Needs - Current Classification
West Region Bed Needs - Proposed Classification

Medical
Observation
Beds

Medical
Isolation

14

4

45

4

1

8

1

2020 Projected
Acute
Mental
Health
Beds

Detox
Beds

Total
Acute
Care Beds

2020
Projected
Total
Bedspaces

ADL
Beds

2020
Projected
Acute Beds
Needs

2020 Bedspace Shortfalls
2020
Projected
Sub -Acute
Beds Needs

2020
2020
Projected Projected Sub Acute Bed
Acute Bed
Shortfall
Shortfall

4

28
87

13
3

8
3
22
24

0

54
59

91
107

46
41

(91)
(107)

12,754
12,089

128
121

364
340

142
149

(351)
(327)

5,371
5,316

54
53

128
126

26
27

(128)
(126)

3,459
3,699

35
37

53
61

52
50

(53)
(61)

26,992
26,991

270
270

635
635

267
267

(622)
(622)

9

32
16
20

2

8

2
6

0

5,408
5,887

22
3

4

0

0

15

6

69

100

6

28

112

4

4
6
4
2

13

2

14

8

67

270

13

2
4

5
25

1
8

6
25

4

11

44

5
14
4
2
4

3

12

29

80

0

4

22
2
3
7

GRAND TOTAL - SHERIFFS & DOC
231
GRAND TOTAL - SHERIFFS & DOC- Current Classification
GRAND TOTAL - SHERIFFS & DOC - Proposed Classification

8
52

140

4

22

0

20

24

87

537

0

13

Note: Acute Beds @ 1% of population; Sub-acute beds @ 3.5% of DOC population; 1.5% of population; Existing bed counts based on surveys data received from facilities; DOC male population distributed
regionally based on ratios of existing beds.

Considering medical space needs by region could be important in planning where new medical facilities may be
located, particularly sub-acute bedspaces. Table 5.1-16 incorporates proposed women regional facilities and the shift
- 112 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

of DOC step-down inmates and 52A‟s into Sheriff facilities. The Central Region has the greatest need (estimated at
340-364) for sub-acute bedspaces in large part due to the numerous DOC facilities in that region. Although this is the
only region that has any existing sub-acute bedspaces, the bedspace shortfall is still the largest at 327-351.
The Southeast Region has the next greatest need and shortfall for sub-acute bedspaces at approximately 126-128.
The Northeast and West have anticipated sub-acute bedspace needs and shortfalls of 91-107 and 53-61
respectively.
This preliminary analysis suggests that with a projected inmate population of approximately 27,000 (excluding civil
commitments) in 2020, on any given day, approximately 905 (635 sub-acute & 270 acute) DOC and Sheriff
Department inmates would have long term medical needs serious enough to be segregated for some period of time
from the general population.
An estimated one-third of the inmate population in need of medical services would be assigned to short-term acute
care beds in an infirmary, community hospital, or purpose-built correctional medical facility. The total 270 acute
bedspace need projected include approximately 155 beds for the Sheriffs collectively and 115 beds for the DOC.
Currently, there are approximately 537 bedspaces in DOC and Sheriff Department infirmaries and Shattuck, including
medical and mental health observation, medical isolation, ESU beds, and detox beds. Although it should be noted
that some of the ESU facilities such as Hampden County‟s have been closed due to lack of funding. Further
compounding this need is the huge influx of pretrial detainees who can be unstable, difficult to diagnose and
frequently held for short periods of time. This increased flow or number of persons that have mental health issues
adds another level of difficulty for all facilities housing pretrial inmates.
As previously stated these beds are not necessarily staffed to the same degree as hospitals and cannot provide the
same level of care. Additionally, the infirmary bedspaces within the system may not be appropriately distributed to
satisfy the particular needs of a facility or region. Optimizing efficiency by pooling resources on a regional basis to
support necessary infrastructure should be considered. Although Table 5.1.16 suggests surpluses of infirmary beds
in 3 regions, with the lack of sub-acute beds and the resulting utilization of infirmaries for inmates requiring sub-acute
care, few facilities are likely to report a surplus.
Additionally, the utilization of local hospitals has allowed the system to accommodate fluctuating needs and the lack
of medical beds at any given facility. The actual number of acute beds or additional infirmary beds that should be
provided in the system is dependent on the extent local hospitals are utilized in the future and an assessment of the
level of care that is provided in the existing infirmaries. As detox beds are limited in the system, a determination as to
whether additional beds are needed in the system or if utilization of local hospitals and/or community facilities is more
cost effective are necessary. Additional study is required to determine the most cost-effective approach to acute care
beds that considers security, transportation, and staffing costs.
The most critical need is for sub-acute bedspaces. A decided trend in prisons has been an attempt to separate the
long-term, chronically ill, or disabled inmates from the general population through separated housing, and if possible,
separate, purpose-built facilities. While the Sheriffs appear to have a larger demand for acute beds due to early
intervention, detox and stabilization required for pretrial detainees, the DOC has a greater need for sub-acute beds.
With only 13 existing long term care beds identified, the DOC is expected to have a sub-acute bedspace need of
approximately 404 by 2020. The collective need for Sheriff departments is estimated at 232 sub-acute bedspaces.
Because existing general custody and infirmary bedspaces are currently being used for inmates requiring sub-acute
care, the addition of purpose-built medical sub-acute bedspaces will provide better care and vacate general custody
and infirmary bedspaces. This will alleviate some overcrowding and allow for a better utilization of infirmary
bedspaces.
- 113 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Components of the Recommended Plan
Prior to adding medical bedspaces, an in-depth Needs Assessment Study that focuses on Medical Service Delivery
in the Corrections System should be implemented. This assessment should consider the capabilities of existing
medical spaces at each facility, determine the appropriate expectations of the level of service to be provided on-site
and make recommendations for upgrades. In the context of that study, recommendations for acute care, whether in
Shattuck, in local hospitals, as part of a regional facility or some combination, should be made. Cost analysis should
be done to consider the most prudent use of funds to provide the appropriate level of care.
The future of the Shattuck Hospital will be determined through a separate, ongoing Health and Human Services
master plan. Although acute care beds are needed in the system, because the use of local hospitals can supplement
acute care needs, acute bed capacity expansion is less critical than the provision of new sub-acute beds. Existing
infirmaries are a critical acute care component because they provide transition care, reducing the length of stay
required in medical-surgical beds, enabling the more efficient use of these higher cost beds. Creating new long-term
sub-acute care units can ensure that infirmaries are not overburdened with long term care inmates.
As previously mentioned, the comparison of current acute and infirmary beds to the projected acute care beds need
by region suggests that if all beds were equally staffed with comparable levels of care, the Northeast, Central and
West Regions would have excess beds while the Southeast Region would experience a projected deficit. However,
not all facilities appear to have sufficient operating budgets for medical staff on a 24 hour basis. With high operational
costs, the provision of acute care must be studied to determine the most cost-effective delivery of services and a
determination of the level of services to be provided on-site as opposed to through local hospitals or an in-system
„prison hospital‟.
The most pressing medical need for the Corrections System and the focus of the CMP‟s recommendations for the
medical population is the estimated 635 inmates suffering from long-term, chronic illness that require sub-acute care.
These inmates are best treated and housed separately from general population. While the total estimate has been
derived from the application of a percentage of sub-acute inmates in another state system, Massachusetts DOC
representatives have indicated a general agreement with the estimate. By adding these types of beds to the system,
infirmaries and Shattuck can be utilized more effectively for acute care related needs. Further, the addition of these
beds reduces the need for expanding general population bedspaces.
As a preliminary placeholder, the recommended solution for meeting the long-term health care requirements takes a
regional approach and includes the construction of 2-3 new regional purpose-built facilities of approx. 200 -300 beds
each. However, in the development of regional medical facilities, consideration should be given to expanding existing
facilities as well as constructing new regional facilities that possibly include acute care, detox facilities as well as long
term care. The projected need for sub-acute bedspaces on a regional basis is as follows:
Northeast Region:
54-59
Southeast Region:
54-53
Central Region:
121-128
West Region:
35-37
Based on the regional projections and the ability to attract medical staff, this preliminary analysis would suggest that
the first sub-acute care facilities should be located in the Central and Southeast Regions, close to existing DOC
facilities if possible.
As many inmates have both health and mental health issues, the most cost effective solution may be one that colocates sub-acute medical and mental health beds within the same complex. Although the total bedspace needs
include men and women, the Needs Assessment Study will consider whether to co-locate men and women in the
same complex or to locate medical facilities for women in or near the regional women facilities.
- 114 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

MENTAL HEALTH POPULATION
Due to the de-funding of community mental health agencies and the closure of many community-based residential
mental health treatment centers, in most jurisdictions throughout the USA, correctional facilities have become the
mental hospitals of the past. The Commonwealth is no exception to this phenomenon with the unfortunate result of
jails and correctional institutions housing an increasingly high percentage of inmates with mild to severe mental
disorders. In the majority of cases, inmates with severe enough mental health problems to require special treatment
(more than a regime of psychotropic medicine) often also have a medical condition that requires constant observation
and treatment. For this reason, the CMP has jointly addressed a solution to the medical and mental health needs of
the incarcerated population.
For the purposes of this study, acute care or short-term crisis care includes stabilization units and mental health
observation and are included in the medical acute bedspace need calculation covered in the previous section.
Sub-acute care includes longer term treatment beds for inmates requiring separate housing from the general
population for special programming and/or treatment. Special programming and treatment in this section is focused
on mental illness and does not include Alcohol /Substance Abuse Residential Treatment due to the relatively short
period after which inmates can typically return to the general population.
Developing an analytical framework for the number of inmates with a severe enough mental illness to require a
separate living and treatment environment was as elusive as defining the medical acuity levels within the population.
A scientifically based approach to surveying the population with trained health professionals is recommended prior to
final programming to address the needs of this segment of the inmate population. However, professional staff within
the DOC and Sheriff Departments agreed that: 1) the number of persons displaying mental disorders to a degree that
they disrupt the normal operations of a housing unit is increasing and 2) a need exists for separation of these
individuals from the general population.
Planning Basis
Sub-Acute Care
Based on surveys, there are approximately 528 sub-acute mental health bedspaces within the DOC and Sheriff
facilities. However, survey respondents do not usually categorize bedspaces the same way and that there is any
consistent level of treatment associated with these bedspaces. Unlike medical care delivery, staffing and services
seem to be in large part provided by vendor contracts.
From the DOC perspective, most of the 370 inmates assigned to Bridgewater State Hospital have a mental disorder
severe enough to warrant their separation from the general population. (Approximately 50 inmates of the 370 are
inmate workers that live at Bridgewater but are not participating in mental health programming.) According to
anecdotal information provided by DOC staff, this by no means represents the universe of inmates that would benefit
from a separate regime, including a separate living environment. Although the total number of inmates assigned to
mental health programming is not known, there are approximately 437 DOC sub-acute mental health beds including
320 at Bridgewater and residential treatment units for the mentally ill at other facilities. The 437 beds represent
approximately 1.3% of the combined DOC and Sheriff population.
In many ways, the problem is more severe in the Sheriff Department facilities since the separation of mentally ill
offenders generally means assignment to the infirmary or accommodation within a designated housing unit with a
closer level of observation, but very little specialized programming. Due to the limited bedspaces at Bridgewater, only
- 115 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

the most severe cases are housed there. Based on a survey completed by the Sheriffs for 2007, almost 25,000
inmates/detainees were diagnosed with a mental illness over the course of 2007. This figure, which is greater than
the 2007 ADP since all pretrial detainees are included, indicates the extent of mental health issues facing Sheriff
Departments. Of those reported, 176 were considered long term care and 740 were listed as Enhanced Outpatient.
The Sheriffs collectively reported approximately 91 mental health beds and 65 mental health staff contracted out.
Recognizing the need to address the management of the mentally ill inmate population but without a more clinically
based survey assessment, the CMP approach has been to benchmark the Commonwealth population against that of
a state (California) that did complete a comprehensive assessment of mentally ill inmates in their prison population. A
study completed by Navigant Consulting1 in 2007 established the number of mentally ill inmates in the California
Department of Correction and Rehabilitation by acuity levels using a survey technique. Broadly, the ratio was defined
as 3.2-3.6% of the total number of inmates having a form of mental disorder that necessitated a separate living
environment and specialized treatment (sub-acute care). For the CMP, sub-acute mental health bedspace need was
estimated at 3.5% of the DOC’s total population.
Estimating the need for separate housing units for Sheriff Department mentally disordered offenders is unchartered
territory. Very few studies were found that could provide a definitive and defensible basis for estimating the need.
However, through observations during the facility tours and conversations with the operations staff, a range of 1.02.0% of the average daily population was identified as being reasonable. Similar to the basis for estimating the DOC
mental health population, this number could be extremely low. For the CMP, sub-acute mental health bedspace need
was estimated at 1.5% of the Sheriff’s total population.
Based on these ranges, estimates of the 2020 mental health bedspace needs with populations assigned to their
appropriate jurisdictions (not where they are currently housed) are summarized in Table 5.1-17.
Table 5.1-17 Estimated Number of Mental Health Bedspaces in 2020
Acute Care
Beds

Sub-Acute
Care Beds
(incl. in Medical
Needed
Acute)
Sheriffs
DOC
Combined Total Mental Health Bedspaces

-

232
404
635

Source: National Benchmarks
Note:Sub-acute needs based on 3.5% of DOC population; 1.5% of Sheriffs population

In total, 635 bedspaces are proposed to better manage the chronic and long-term needs of the mentally ill population
for both the DOC and Sheriff Departments. This number should be further disaggregated into acuity levels
(Enhanced Outpatient (EOP), low, and high acuity). However, at this stage of planning a determination cannot be
made of the percentage of mental health beds by acuity levels. In the development of an architectural program for
any new or expanded facility to serve the mentally ill population, an acuity level study should be undertaken.
Table 5.1-18 illustrates the existing (2007) mental health beds in the system by region, considering current and
proposed classification systems. Considering mental health bedspace needs by region could be important in
determining the location of new mental health facilities. Table 5.1-18 incorporates proposed women regional facilities
and the shift of DOC step-down inmates and 52A‟s into Sheriff facilities. Although all regions are predicted to have
shortfalls, the largest concentration of population and therefore need is in the Central and Southeast Regions.
1

Mental Health Bed Need Study-Annual Report; Navigant Consulting; July 2007. State of California

- 116 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5
Table 5.1-18 Mental Health Bedspaces by Region – Men & Women

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Essex County Correctional Alternative Center
Essex County Correctional Facility
Essex W.I.T
Suffolk County HOC
Suffolk County Jail
Boston Pre-Release Center
Northeast Region Existing Beds
Northeast Region Bed Needs - Current Classification
Northeast Region Bed Needs - Proposed Classification
Middlesex County House of Correction
Middlesex County Jail
Norfolk County Correctional Center
Worcester County Jail and HOC
Bay State Correctional Center
MCI-Cedar Junction
Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center
MCI-Concord
MCI-Framingham
MCI-Norfolk
MCI-Shirley Medium
MCI-Shirley Minimum
North Central Correctional Institute- Medium
North Central Correctional Institute- Minimum
Northeastern Correctional Center
Pondville Correctional Center
South Middlesex Correctional Center
Central Region Existing Beds
Central Region Bed Needs - Current Classification
Central Region Bed Needs - Proposed Classification
Barnstable County Correctional Facility
Bristol County Jail & HOC
Bristol County Jail & HOC (Ash Street)
Dukes County Jail and HOC
Plymouth County Correctional Facility
Bridgewater State Hospital
Massachusetts Alcohol and Substance Abuse Center
Massachusetts Treatment Center
MCI-Plymouth
Old Colony Correctional Center Medium
Old Colony Correctional Center Minimum
Southeast Region Existing Beds
Southeast Region Bed Needs - Current Classification
Southeast Region Bed Needs - Proposed Classification
Berkshire County Jail and HOC
Franklin County Jail and HOC
Hampden County Correctional Alcohol Center (WMCAC)
Hampden County Jail and HOC @ Stony Brook
Hampden County Correctional Women Center (WMRWCC)
Hampshire County Jail and HOC
West Region Existing Beds
WestRegion Bed Needs - Current Classification
West Region Bed Needs - Proposed Classification
GRAND TOTAL - SHERIFFS & DOC
GRAND TOTAL - SHERIFFS & DOC- Current Classification
GRAND TOTAL - SHERIFFS & DOC - Proposed Classification

ESU
Mental Health
(Evaluation and
Observation
Stabilization)
Beds
Beds

Alcohol/
Substance
Sub-Acute Projected
Abuse
Mental
Total
Residential
Health Beds Bedspaces
Treatment
Beds

Total
Acute
Mental
Health
Beds*

Projected
Sub-Acute
MH Beds

2020
Subacute MH
Bedspace
Shortfalls

4
4

0

4

4

316

8

316

12

15
22
3

96

5,408
5,719

91
107

(79)
(95)

12,754
12,263

364
340

(203)
(179)

5,371
5,310

128
126

196
198

3,459
3,699

53
61

(22)
(30)

26,992
26,991

635
635

(107)
(107)

15
12
1
16

9
8
4
6
4
2

42

2

0

67

39
28

67

138

12
110

5
14
4
2

29

20
2

2

22

2

22

102

161

4

320
236

4
0

42

61
29

24

124

419

324

55

16

182
136
18

13
2

391

31

1264

528

Note: Sub-Acute Mental Health Beds @ @ 3.5% of DOC population; 1.5% of Sheriff population; Existing bed counts based on surveys received from facilities; DOC male
population distributed regionally based on ratios of existing beds;* Acute Mental Health Bed Need included in Acute Medical Bed Need ; Only Residential Treatment Beds
used for Mental Health are counted in Sub-acute Mental Health Beds -others incl. in General Custody Bed Counts

- 117 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

This analysis suggests that with a total projected incarcerated population of 27,000 (excluding civil commitments) in
2020, on any given day, approximately 635 DOC and Sheriff Department inmates would have long term mental
health needs serious enough to be segregated for some period of time from the general population.
Existing long-term sub-acute care bedspaces reported total approximately 528. With a projected bedspace need of
635, there is an anticipated shortfall in the range of 107 bedspaces, assuming all the existing bedspaces remain. Of
note is that the existing sub-acute care bedspaces in Table 5.1-18 are current bed counts that may be reduced when
applying CMP Baseline Capacity standards. Actual capacity must be assessed on a facility basis as part of a more
focused study. Although this analysis illustrates where existing bedspaces are located within the system, these
existing beds are currently considered general custody beds and have been counted as such in the larger analysis of
bedspaces. Long term, the CMP assumes that new bedspaces in regional facilities will be required to address this
need effectively.
At the present time, the primary mental health facility in the Commonwealth‟s Corrections System is the Bridgewater
State Hospital (BSH), located in the Southeast Region. This facility is not designed for the type of population that
requires intensive mental health programming, supplemented with medical care. Additionally, Bridgewater State
Hospital campus layout is not well-suited for its mission. Dining spaces and program spaces in separate buildings
from housing require access through uncovered and unheated exterior spaces. Given the special population at this
campus, this movement is not ideal and creates inefficiencies not easily remedied. This facility should be considered
for repurposing to housing a different, more appropriate segment of DOC‟s population.
Civil Commitments
Although currently housed in DOC facilities in large part to receive treatment, the civil commitments have not been
included in the bedspace needs to this point even though they currently consume bedspaces. The CMP recommends
that civil commitments, when possible, be treated in community-based programs so that reimbursement from
Medicaid, Medicare, or private insurance can be pursued. These populations include mentally ill, sexually dangerous
persons and alcohol / substance abuse populations. Table 5.1-19 summarizes the additional bedspace needs
projected for these populations.
Table 5.1-19
Projected Civil Commitments – Mentally Ill & Alcohol / Substance Abuse
2020
Projected
Civil Commitments
2009 ADP
Bedspace
Need
Mentally Ill
227
242
Alcohol / Substance Abuse (Section 35's)
92
183
Sexually Dangerous Persons
295
247
Notes: All civil commits are male exceppt 17 female Section 35's

Inclusion of these populations within the Corrections System is unique to Massachusetts, particularly alcohol and
substance abuse cases. Currently alcohol and substance abuse civil commitments are treated at the Massachusetts
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Center (MASAC). Historically, the reason for this appears to be the lack of communitybased treatment programs. In fact, due to the limited community-based programs, some civil commitments have
criminal holds placed on them to ensure they receive treatment in the DOC. As the programs have become available,
the number of Section 35 detainees within the DOC has been decreasing. In fact, DOC has been able to reduce the
population at MASAC due to available beds at the Men‟s Addiction Treatment Center, a nonprofit treatment center in
- 118 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Brockton. Keeping these civil commits in the DOC‟s MASAC facility will reduce the DOC‟s ability to provide treatment
to their inmate populations who have no other alternative for treatment.
Sexually Dangerous persons are discussed furthering more detail later in the section on Sex Offenders.
Relevant to this section are the mentally ill civil commitments as they occupy many of the sub-acute mental health
bedspaces at BSH and present an even more difficult burden for the DOC. Given the limited number of bedspaces
for the mentally ill and the overwhelming need for these sub-acute bedspaces for incarcerated individuals, utilizing
them for civilly committed individuals is simply not affordable or cost-effective. Federal reimbursements for this care
are not possible when treatment is provided in Correction facilities. Many of these individuals are committed after
their completed sentence and are civilly committed because they have been determined to be dangerous to
themselves and/or others. Understanding that security levels must be assessed, the CMP recommends that the
responsibility for some or all of the civilly committed mentally ill be transferred to the care of the Department of Mental
Health (DMH) if possible. In fact, DMH currently cares for female mentally ill civil commitments. Understanding the
overlapping and duplicate services provided by DMH and DOC is needed to determine the most cost-effective means
of addressing the needs of this population. Should this not be possible, the mentally ill civil commits should be added
to the sub-acute mental health bedspace need, increasing from 635 to approximately 877.
Components of the Recommended Plan – Mental Health Population
The need for separate living environments for mentally ill offenders is a trend in the US prison system today. By
providing a separate environment with specialized programming and services, management of the general population
can become more efficient. In addition, co-locating the sub-acute medical beds with the bedspaces for the mentally
disordered population improves the level of care since many mentally ill patients have medical problems. Table
5.1.18 which identifies current sub-acute bedspaces can inform where the first new bedspaces should be added.
Table 5.1-20 illustrates the projected need for sub-acute mental health bedspaces on a regional basis is as follows:
Northeast Region:
Central Region:

91 -107
340-364

Southeast Region:
West Region:

126-128
35-37

As per Table 5.1-18, the Central Region has the largest target sub-acute mental health bedspace need beds and the
largest shortfall of approximately 179-203 beds. The Southeast Region has the next greatest target need but with
BSH, there would actually be a surplus of approximately 196 -198 beds. As noted, the projected need and resulting
surplus does not include the civilly committed. Furthermore, BSH is serving the entire system, not only the Southeast
Region. The Northeast Region‟s target need compared to the existing 12 sub-acute beds results in a shortfall of
approximately 79-95 beds. Similarly, the West Region is expected to have a shortfall of approx. 22-30 sub-acute
beds.
Due to reasons previously stated, the CMP recommends the eventual repurposing of the BSH and/or the
construction of new purpose-built facilities to provide a range of medical and mental health bedspaces either adjacent
to the campus or on a new site.
This potential repurposing of BSH can provide the opportunity to redistribute the sub-acute bedspaces to more
appropriately address needs on a regional basis. Clearly, all beds are not equal and the most severe cases of mental
illness will require more intensive care that is not easily and cost-effectively provided at most individual facilities.
Critical to this discussion is whether the types of mental health beds in the system currently are appropriate; whether
- 119 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

the bedspaces are supported by staff that can provide the necessary treatment; whether they are located
appropriately to serve the inmate populations; and whether the mental health services are provided in a cost-effective
manner. The plan for BSH and the provision of mental health bedspaces should be investigated in more detail as part
of the Needs Assessment prior to implementing any medical and mental health bed projects.
Without BSH„s approximately 320 sub-acute mental health beds (and 14 mental health observation beds), the
system‟s sub-acute mental health care capacity reduces to approximately 208 beds and results in a shortfall of
approximately 427 sub-acute beds, assuming the remaining current mental health beds are adequately staffed and
facilities are appropriate for continued use. This also translates to a shortfall of 122-124 sub-acute beds in the
Southeast Region.
Due to limited resources, new purpose-built facilities sized to meet the entire target need will not be possible by 2020.
Therefore, at minimum, the existing BSH mental health beds are likely to remain in the system for the immediate
future. Determining a comprehensive plan that phases in new beds to initially supplement existing beds while
maintaining the feasibility for implementing the long range plan will be required. However, for planning purposes, with
the exception of BSH, the existing sub-acute beds have not been excluded from the general custody bedspace
calculations. The CMP assumes that new purpose-built facilities will be provided over time to accommodate this
population, making bedspaces available in existing facilities for general population inmates.
As noted earlier, co-location of medical and mental health beds is ideal in large part due to co-existing medical and
mental health needs of many inmates. Table 5.1-20 illustrates the disaggregation of the projected 1,541 medical and
mental health beds by DOC and Sheriffs. DOC step-down inmates and 52A‟s detainees are included in DOC needs
in Table 5.1-20 but have been reassigned to Sheriffs in Table 5.1-21. These numbers must be validated by a more
detailed assessment of acuity levels before embarking upon a building program.
Table 5.1-20 Estimated Number of Medical and Mental Health Bedspaces by 2020
Acute Medical Sub-acute
Sub-acute Total Health
/ MH Beds Medical Beds Mental Health Care Beds
2020
2020
Beds 2020
2020
Sheriffs
DOC
Total Medical + Mental Bedspaces

155
115
270

232
404
635

232
404
635

618
922
1,541

Source: National Benchmarks applied to DOC and County projections

In order to assess the shortfalls of medical and mental bedspaces on a regional basis, Table 5.1-21 summarizes the
shortfalls and surpluses of the different medical and mental health care beds based on existing bedspaces identified
and applying the current classification system.
Table 5.1-21
Estimated Medical and Mental Health Bedspaces Shortfalls / Surpluses by 2020 with DOC Step-down - Current Classification
Medical and Mental Health Regions
Northeast Region
Central Region
Southeast Region
West Region
Total Medical + Mental Bedspaces

Sub-acute
Sub-acute Acute Medical
Mental Health
Medical Bed / MH Bed
Bed Shortfall
Shortfall Shortfall 2020
2020
(91)
(351)
(128)
(53)
(622)

46
142
26
52
267

(79)
(203)
196
(22)
(107)

Total bed
Shortfall
2020
(124)
(411)
94
(23)
(463)

- 120 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

As previously discussed, medical acute care beds are not the most critical need in the Massachusetts Corrections
System. In fact, Table 5.1-21 illustrates a surplus of 267 bedspaces. These infirmary beds are not staffed nor do they
typically provide the level of care received in a hospital setting. Because Shattuck Hospital plays a critical role in
providing a higher level of acute care, Shattuck‟s future is central to determining whether new higher level medical
acute care beds are required in the system. However, because providing medical sub-acute care beds will enable
better use of acute care beds at Shattuck, in DOC and Sheriff department infirmaries and even in local hospitals, the
first steps in the CMP will focus on sub-acute medical needs.
The sub-acute medical bedspace shortfall for 2020, estimated at approximately 622 beds, is clearly the greatest
shortfall in the Massachusetts Correction system‟s mental and medical bedspaces. The sub-acute mental health care
bedspaces shortfall is estimated at approximately 107 beds. Should Bridgewater State Hospital be repurposed, this
shortfall increases to 427 beds. As previously noted, the existing sub-acute mental health bedspaces are currently
considered general custody beds and are in fact counted as such in the capacity analysis. Short-term these beds can
continue to serve the mental health needs but the CMP recommends providing these bedspaces in new regional
facilities and utilizing the existing bedspaces for general custody needs.
Although short-term crisis (acute care) mental health beds need to be carefully assessed on a facility basis, the
provision of at least some portion of these beds in regional facilities should be included to supplement existing beds
and realize staffing efficiencies.
In the short-term, if all existing medical and mental health bedspaces remain in use except for the repurposing of
Bridgewater State Hospital, the total medical and mental health bedspace shortfalls are estimated at approximately
1,050 (1,049 = 622 medical sub-acute; 427 mental health sub-acute = 107 + 320 BSH beds ). This shortfall does not
incorporate the potential repurposing of surplus medical acute beds. Long term, the replacement of all sub-acute
bedspaces estimated at approx. 1,270 bedspaces should be provided in new specialized regional facilities.
As previously noted, this calculation does not include civilly committed individuals. The bedspace shortfall can be
expected to increase as follows: Sub-acute medical bedspaces +24; acute medical + 8; sub-acute mental health
+242; totaling 274 additional bedspaces. Combined with the replacing existing medical and mental health sub-acute
bedspaces, the total sub-acute bedspace need is estimated at 1,536.
The configuration of these purpose-built beds is best described as similar to assisted living environments with a
percentage of the beds in high security housing, especially the mental health crisis beds. While the 1,200 – 1,500
bed need could be met through additions to existing institutions, the continuous care requirements of this population
cohort that requires intensive treatment are such that “stand-alone” facilities with specialty staff will likely prove to be
most effective. However, these purpose-built facilities will require programs equivalent to those accessible in general
custody facilities.
Sizing these special-built facilities is more a factor of the disaggregate than the aggregate, meaning that the total
facility may be 400- 500 (recommended in the CMP) while the more important number is the span of control of the
nursing station (28-32 beds). Again, a final size of the nursing station and the total facility size should be determined
through a more scientific survey of acuity levels. Using 1,500 medical and mental health beds as the universe of
need by 2020 (assuming the inclusion of civil commitments) and 500 as a target size for a single facility, three new
specialized facilities are proposed.
Some inmates admitted to these facilities will require a level of security comparable to a prison, but their criteria for
admission is based upon their medical and/or mental diagnosis and not their custody classification. Location of these
three purpose-built facilities should be influenced by the proximity of a source of trained medical and mental health
- 121 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

professionals; e.g. university teaching hospitals and medical schools. While co-location with existing prisons is
acceptable, these specialty facilities should rely more upon community resources than correctional environments for
support. Transportation costs and the use of telemedicine must be considered in the location of these regional
specialized facilities.
Considering where the greatest shortfalls are regionally can inform potential locations for the new facilities. The
Central Region has the greatest shortfalls and is home to the largest portion of the Corrections System‟s population.
The Southeast Region, with the repurposing of BSH would have the next greatest shortfall and has the second
largest population. Shortfalls in the Northeast and West Regions can also be addressed in these shared facilities.
The Commonwealth is rich in health care resources, thus the attraction of qualified professional staff should be easier
than in states that typically locate prisons in remote areas. Also, most of the inmates that would populate the
proposed health care facilities are currently assigned to institutions in the eastern one-third of the Commonwealth. As
shown in Figure 5.1-2, possible general locations for the proposed new health care facilities are therefore focused in
the Central Region.
Figure 5.1-2 Proposed General Locations for New Medical and Mental Health Facilities

Phasing of the Recommended Plan
For a first phase, one medical / mental health facility is recommended. Continuing the use of BSH and Shattuck in
the short term will be required. Following a more in-depth Needs Assessment, new facilities and upgrades to existing
facilities can be more completely defined.

- 122 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

PRE-RELEASE AND REENTRY POPULATION
In the Corrections Master Plan, pre-release/reentry is defined as the “place” where release preparation occurs. While
the reentry and pre-release programs are essential to a successful re-integration into the community, the focus of the
CMP is the facilities where these programs and services can occur. The distinction between “place” and “program” is
significant. Typically, the DOC (and many Sheriffs) assigns eligible offenders to a pre-release/reentry program,
which, in the case of the DOC includes both housing and program/activity spaces.
For most of the Sheriff departments, reentry includes the dedication of housing units and non-housing spaces in jails,
community residential and non-residential reentry program facilities for the programs associated with pre-release and
reentry. Thus, from the perspective of capital funding, pre-release/reentry means a dedicated place (e.g., facility
and/or housing unit) which may include confinement housing in a jail or prison, community-based residential housing,
or a non-residential office where daily reentry programs and services are provided.
Planning Basis
Some Sheriff departments assign inmates to “reentry” even during their pretrial status and do provide a range of very
beneficial programs and services that prepare inmates for their ultimate release from a county jail or house of
correction. Accommodating this practice, while essential to the mission, is not the focus of the CMP where the
emphasis is the provision of separate bedspaces for inmates that qualify to be assigned to a purpose-built program in
a purpose-built environment. These programs are core to successful pre-release/re-entry and the spaces needed to
support those programs should be assessed on a county specific basis when pre-release bedspaces are added. The
CMP is based on the assumption that many inmates will be assigned to a pre-release or reentry status but due to
many factors, including the committing offense or behavior while incarcerated, will not be assigned to a purpose-built,
low custody facility.
Currently, the DOC has approximately 833 bedspaces categorized as minimum / pre-release beds or approximately
7% of the total current beds. Because the breakdown of minimum / pre-release inmates housed in these beds has
not been tracked historically by DOC, the percentage of inmates classified as „pre-release‟ (as opposed to minimum
custody) is difficult to predict based on current practices and trends.
As a starting point, a snapshot of the population on December 28, 2009 was used to get an order of magnitude
estimate of the number of pre-release inmates based on the current classification system; 3.1% of the sentenced
men population and 4.8% of the sentenced women population were classified as pre-release. Applying these
percentages to the total projected bedspace need for men and women, the DOC‟s 2020 pre-release bedspace need
is estimated at approximately 354 beds (338 for men and 16 for women). Since this snapshot includes countysentenced women currently housed in DOC facilities, the pre-release percentage for women could be lower if only
DOC sentenced women were considered. However, this information was not available and the impact would be
marginal since the total women pre-release beds using the current classification are estimated at only 16.
This DOC snapshot included a wait list for pre-release/minimum bedspaces that amounts to an additional 1% of the
sentenced population but it was not broken down into pre-release and minimum custody. For planning purposes, this
increase has been assumed to be largely minimum custody inmates and not pre-release.
The DOC completed a re-classification study of the existing population in 2005 that found that the point system at
that time had a scoring and over-ride process that did not meet industry standards, resulting in higher security levels
than was necessary. Based on this study an Objective Classification System was implemented that resulted in a
- 123 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

slight shift to lesser security levels. Based on national standards, 16.5% of the DOC‟s ADP should be assigned to
pre-release status, eliminating inmates that are within the release eligibility date but are such serious offenders (e.g.,
sex offenders) that they do not qualify for a community-based assignment. Although the current classification system
represents a shift in this direction, the potential for greater gains is presented in this „target‟ or proposed classification
system. In this calculation, the percentage of men and women in pre-release/reentry is assumed to represent the
current male/female split in the general population. However, an argument could easily be made that a higher
percentage of women will be release-eligible than men.
This percentage, 16.5%, was applied against the 2020 DOC projected sentenced bedspace needs (11,235) to arrive
at a planning number of approximately 1,853 pre-release/reentry bedspaces (1,797 men and 57 women). This
calculation more than quadruples the target number of pre-release bedspace need.
The number of pre-release/reentry inmates in Sheriff department facilities is much more difficult to determine since a
uniform classification system is not used. However, based upon discussions with representatives of the Sheriff‟s
Departments and data provided by most Sheriffs in a matrix, a percentage of 22% of the projected sentenced
bedspaces (10,194) was used to estimate the number of 2020 pre-release/reentry bedspaces. The split between
males and females was also based upon the percentage of sentenced females in the county population. However,
due to women‟s shorter sentences, a higher percentage could be applied. However, the same percentage is applied
to men and women because there is no data from which to base a modified formula.
Table 5.1-22 presents the projected number of DOC and county pre-release/reentry beds for 2020 utilizing the
current classification system. Table 5.1-23 presents the proposed number of pre-release beds, applying the revised
classification to DOC beds.
Table 5.1-22
Pre-Release/Reentry Bedspace Need for 2020 with Current Classification System
Pre-Release

Males

Sheriffs
DOC
Combined Total Pre-Release Beds

2,057
338
2,395

Females

Total Beds
by 2020

186
17
202

2,243
354
2,597

Projected DOC beds utilizing current classification breakdown - Pre-release @ 3.1% for men; 4.8%
for women

Table 5.1-23
Pre-Release/Reentry Bedspace Need for 2020 with Proposed Classification System
Pre-Release

Males

Sheriffs
DOC
Combined Total Pre-Release Beds

2,057
1,797
3,854

Females

Total Beds
by 2020

186
57
243

2,243
1,854
4,097

Source: Carter Goble Lee; Percentages of 22% of county-sentenced bedspace needs;
16.5% applied to DOC sentenced bedspace needs.

As the above tables illustrate, the classification system has tremendous impact on the pre-release bedspace
projection, with the target bedspace needs differing by 1,459 beds for men. This becomes critical in determining the
type and quantity of bedspaces to build in a phased plan. With a classification system that results in more inmates
eligible for pre-release, meeting the need of the projected population can be achieved by building fewer „secure‟
general custody beds which are typically more expensive to build and operate than pre-release. These pre-release

- 124 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

facilities can either be developed on State-owned Sheriff or DOC properties or they can potentially be leased in the
community where they can more quickly be brought on line as the need arises.
Regardless of which classification system is used, the majority of pre-release bedspace need will be for countysentenced population (86% under the current classification and 55% under the proposed classification system).
One of the key CMP goals is to institute a state-wide comprehensive step-down program to transfer eligible DOC
inmates in the last 6-12 months of their sentence into Sheriff facilities of their originating counties. This will enable
inmates to make connections to community resources while still incarcerated, supporting a successful reintegration
into the community, and ultimately a lower rate of recidivism. The increased step-down of DOC inmates into Sheriff
facilities may necessitate an increased use of minimum bedspaces in order to effectively assess inmates and step
them down gradually. However, due to the 15% multiplier applied to the Sheriff‟s ADP to translate into bedspace
need that accommodates peaking and classification, temporary assignment to minimum bedspaces should be
accommodated. Although a more integrated classification system will make this transition smoother, in some cases,
the mix of bedspaces may need to include some minimum bedspaces and should be determined for each facility
during the programming of new beds and should be based on operational issues in each Sheriff department.
While the total bedspaces needed in the system does not change, the impact of shifting some DOC population to the
Sheriffs would result in fewer DOC bedspaces and more Sheriff pre-release bedspaces. Defining the criteria that
determine eligibility for transfer from DOC facilities into Sheriff facilities will be critical for a smooth transition and
should be developed with input from all stakeholders. Even with the transfer of a majority of DOC eligible pre-release
inmates into Sheriff facilities, DOC may still need additional pre-release beds.
Based on DOC Release Reports for 2002-2006, the percentages of DOC inmates released to each county by gender
were averaged to estimate the likely distribution of stepped –down / pre-release inmates from the DOC into Sheriff or
multi-jurisdictional regional pre-release facilities. The results are illustrated in Tables 5.1-24 and 5.1-25 for reference.
Table 5.1-24 Percentage of Male DOC Inmates Released by
County of Origin
Self-Reported County
of Origin

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Table 5.1-25 Percentage of Female DOC Inmates Released by
County of Origin

Average %
of DOC
Releases

Self-Reported County of
Origin

Essex
Suffolk
Northeast Region
Middlesex
Norfolk
Worcester
Central Region
Barnstable
Bristol
Dukes
Nantucket
Plymouth
Southeast Region
Berkshire
Franklin
Hampden
Hampshire

11%
22%
33%
12%
4%
13%
29%
3%
9%
0%
0%
5%
17%
2%
1%
12%
1%

9%
23%
32%
12%
4%
11%
27%
2%
8%
0%
0%
5%
15%
2%
1%
14%
1%

7%
27%
34%
12%
4%
9%
25%
2%
7%
0%
0%
7%
16%
1%
1%
14%
1%

7%
29%
36%
10%
4%
10%
24%
1%
8%
0%
0%
7%
16%
1%
0%
13%
1%

8%
26%
34%
12%
4%
11%
27%
2%
8%
0%
0%
7%
17%
2%
0%
13%
1%

8%
25%
34%
12%
4%
11%
26%
2%
8%
0%
0%
6%
16%
2%
1%
13%
1%

Essex
Suffolk
Northeast Region
Middlesex
Norfolk
Worcester
Central Region
Barnstable
Bristol
Dukes
Nantucket
Plymouth
Southeast Region
Berkshire
Franklin
Hampden
Hampshire

West Region
Out-of-State

16%
7%

18%
7%

17%
6%

15%
7%

16%
7%

16%
7%

West Region
Out-of-State/ not reported

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Average %
of DOC
Releases

17%
11%
28%
18%
5%
25%
48%
1%
3%
0%
0%
10%
14%
1%
0%
2%
0%

16%
10%
26%
18%
5%
28%
51%
3%
3%
0%
0%
9%
15%
0%
0%
2%
0%

13%
12%
25%
23%
7%
22%
52%
2%
4%
0%
0%
9%
15%
1%
0%
2%
0%

14%
13%
27%
21%
6%
26%
53%
1%
4%
0%
0%
6%
11%
0%
0%
3%
0%

12%
13%
25%
27%
7%
22%
56%
1%
3%
0%
0%
8%
12%
0%
0%
1%
0%

14%
12%
26%
22%
6%
25%
53%
2%
4%
0%
0%
8%
13%
0%
0%
2%
0%

3%
7%

2%
6%

3%
4%

3%
5%

1%
5%

2%
5%

Source: DOC Release Reports 2002-2006

Source: DOC Release Reports 2002-2006

- 125 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

As this DOC release data included county-sentenced females from some of the Sheriff departments, there is a slight
skew to the distribution of DOC step-down. However, due to the relatively low number of DOC females, the impact of
this skew is minimal. The potential distribution of DOC step-down inmates utilizing the current classification system is
illustrated in Table 5.1-26 and the potential distribution of DOC step-down inmates utilizing the proposed or target
classification system is illustrated in Table 5.1-27.
Table 5.1-26
2020 DOC Step-down for Pre-Release Bedspaces
Current Classification System
Region

DOC- Step-down Beds 2020
Male

Northeast Region
Central Region
Southeast Region
West Region
DOC / Out-of-State
Total

Table 5.1-27
2020 DOC Step-down for Pre-Release Bedspaces
Proposed/Target Classification System

Female
114
89
55
55
24
338

DOC- Step-down Beds 2020

Region

Total
4
9
2
0
1
17

Male

118
98
57
56
25
354

Northeast Region
Central Region
Southeast Region
West Region
DOC / Out-of-State
Total

Female

607
474
291
295
129
1,797

Total
15
30
8
1
3
57

622
505
299
296
132
1,853

As women pre-release bedspace need was covered in a previous section of this Chapter, pre-release bedspace
need for men are the focus of the following tables. Table 5.1-28 summarizes the total Male Pre-release and DOC
Step-down Beds projected for 2020 using the current classification system while Table 5.1-29 uses the proposed
classification system.
Table 5.1-28
2020 Male Pre-Release +DOC Step-down –
Current Classification
Sheriff
Essex
Suffolk
Northeast Region
Middlesex County
Norfolk County
Worcester County
Central Region
Barnstable County
Bristol County
Dukes County
Plymouth County
Southeast Region
Berkshire County
Franklin County
Hampden County
Hampshire County
West Region

DOC
Pre-Release
Step-down
Beds 2020
2020

Total
Pre-release

304
370
673
225
108
203
536
77
169
7
158
412
63
38
263
72
435

28
86
114
39
14
36
89
7
27
0
21
55
5
2
45
3
55

332
455
787
264
121
240
625
84
196
7
179
467
68
40
307
76
491

2,057

24
338

24
2,395

DOC Pre-Release
TOTALS

Table 5.1-29
2020 Male Pre-Release +DOC Step-down Proposed Classification
Sheriff
Essex
Suffolk
Northeast Region
Middlesex County
Norfolk County
Worcester County
Central Region
Barnstable County
Bristol County
Dukes County
Plymouth County
Southeast Region
Berkshire County
Franklin County
Hampden County
Hampshire County
West Region

DOC
Pre-Release
Step-down
Beds 2020
2020
304
370
673
225
108
203
536
77
169
7
158
412
63
38
263
72
435

151
456
607
208
72
194
474
36
144
0
111
291
29
11
237
18
295

455
826
1,281
433
180
397
1,010
113
313
7
270
703
91
49
500
90
730

2,057

129
1,797

129
3,854

DOC Pre-release
TOTALS

Total
Pre-release

Pre-release and reentry services are program intensive. For the Sheriffs this status often means work release and
the ability to leave the facility for work or education assignments during allowed times. A similar approach is used by
the DOC although their pre-release offenders tend to be involved in a range of programs that while including work
release, also include intensive release preparation through substance abuse counseling, remedial skills classes, and
job seeking training. This type of programming is also available in Sheriff facilities but varies from facility to facility.
- 126 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Furthermore, many Sheriff departments do not designate units specifically for pre-release populations. However, prerelease programs that include work release are best sited separately from the general population with a separate
entry at minimum, if not outside of the secure perimeter.
Table 5.1-30 summarizes the current pre-release facilities in the Massachusetts Corrections System, illustrating the
impact on the CMP Baseline Capacity and Potential Capacity. There are currently approximately 1,823 beds
designated as pre-release bedspaces for men and women, constituting approximately 7% of the total combined
bedspaces in DOC and Sheriff facilities. Because many Sheriffs house pre-release inmates in units within the
facilities that are not designed as pre-release facilities, many beds used for eligible pre-release inmates are buried in
the total facility capacity bedspace counts and would not be included in the table below. DOC beds are categorized
as Pre-release/Minimum and therefore may house some inmates that are not classified as pre-release. By applying
the CMP Baseline Capacity guidelines, the total pre-release capacity reduces to 1,343 but with plumbing fixture
upgrades can be raised to 1,794 beds.
Table 5.1-30 Existing Pre-Release Beds – Men & Women
Current
Beds

Jurisdiction
Sheriffs
DOC
Total

990
833
1823

CMP
Baseline
Capacity
738
605
1343

Potential
Capacity
999
795
1794

Of the designated pre-release beds listed in Table 5.1-30 and 5.1-31, the majority of beds are for male inmates.
DOC‟s South Middlesex Correctional Center (186 current beds / 155 CMP Baseline Capacity / 187 Potential
Capacity), Essex County WIT (24 beds) and the WMRWCC (48 beds) are the only facilities designated specifically
for women. Of the 1,823 current beds, 258 are for women and 1,565 are for men. Of the 1,343 CMP Baseline
Capacity beds, 227 are for women and 1,116 are for men. Of the 1,794 Potential Capacity beds, 259 are for women
and 1,535 are for men.
Table 5.1-31 breaks down the current pre-release beds by region, with DOC facilities included based on their
location. The majority of pre-release beds are located in the Central Region. The majority of the Northeast Region‟s
pre-release beds are in the Essex Co. Correctional Center and the DOC‟s Boston Pre-release Center. The West
Region‟s pre-release beds are mostly in Hampden County.
Table 5.1-31 Existing Pre-Release Beds by Region – Men & Women
Current
Beds

Jurisdiction
Northeast Region
Central Region
Southeast Region
West Region
Total

CMP
Baseline
Capacity

Potential
Capacity

659
982

408
697

664
881

182
1823

238
1343

249
1794

Tables 5.1-32 and 5.1-33 on the following page compare pre-release bedspace capacity and needs to generate prerelease bedspace shortfalls by jurisdiction and region, including men and women, applying the current classification
and proposed / target classification respectively.

- 127 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5
Table 5.1-32 Pre-Release Beds with DOC Step-down by Region and Jurisdiction – Current Classification

Jurisdiction

Essex
Suffolk
Northeast Region
Middlesex County
Norfolk County
Worcester County
Central Region
Barnstable County
Bristol County
Dukes County
Plymouth County
Southeast Region
Berkshire County
Franklin County
Hampden County
Hampshire County
West Region
DOC Pre-release
TOTALS

Pre-Release CMP
Baseline Capacity

2020 Pre-release
Bedspace Need

Males

Males

Females

174
74
248
116
64
48
228
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
138
40
190
450
1,116

24
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
0
48
155
227

Females

332
455
787
264
121
240
625
84
196
7
179
467
68
40
307
76
491
24
2,395

40
24
64
27
14
20
61
8
18
0
12
39
6
0
31
1
38
1
202

2020 Pre-release Bed Potential Capacity 2020 Pre-release
Shortfall
Pre-release
Bed Shortfall
(CMP Capacity)
Bedspaces
(Potential Capacity)
Males

Females

(158)
(381)
(539)
(148)
(57)
(192)
(397)
(84)
(196)
(7)
(179)
(467)
(68)
(28)
(169)
(36)
(301)
426
(1,279)

(16)
(24)
(40)
(27)
(14)
(20)
(61)
(8)
(18)
0
(12)
(39)
(6)
0
17
(1)
10
154
25

Males
328
74
402
116
128
80
324
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
138
51
201
608
1,535

Females
24
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
0
48
187
259

Males
(4)
(381)
(385)
(148)
7
(160)
(301)
(84)
(196)
(7)
(179)
(467)
(68)
(28)
(169)
(25)
(290)
584
(860)

Females
(16)
(24)
(40)
(27)
(14)
(20)
(61)
(8)
(18)
0
(12)
(39)
(6)
0
17
(1)
10
186
57

Projected DOC beds utilizing current classification breakdown - 3.1% of sentenced men and 4.8% of sentenced women

Table 5.1-33 Pre-Release Beds with DOC Step-down by Region and Jurisdiction – Proposed Classification
Jurisdiction

Pre-Release CMP
Baseline Capacity
Males

2020 Pre-release
Bedspace Need

Females

Males

Females

2020 Pre-release Bed Potential Capacity 2020 Pre-release
Shortfall
Pre-release
Bed Shortfall
(CMP Capacity)
Bedspaces
(Potential Capacity)
Males

Females

Males

Females

Males

Females

Essex
Suffolk
Northeast Region
Middlesex County
Norfolk County
Worcester County

174
74
248
116
64
48

24
0
24
0
0
0

455
826
1,281
433
180
397

46
29
74
36
17
30

(281)
(752)
(1,033)
(317)
(116)
(349)

(22)
(29)
(50)
(36)
(17)
(30)

328
74
402
116
128
80

24
0
24
0
0
0

(127)
(752)
(879)
(317)
(52)
(317)

(22)
(29)
(50)
(36)
(17)
(30)

Central Region
Barnstable County
Bristol County
Dukes County

228
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

1,010
113
313
7

82
9
19
0

(782)
(113)
(313)
(7)

(82)
(9)
(19)
0

324
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

(686)
(113)
(313)
(7)

(82)
(9)
(19)
0

0
0
0
12
138
40
190
450
1,116

0
0
0
0
48
0
48
155
227

270
703
91
49
500
90
730
129
3,854

16
44
6
0
31
1
39
3
242

(270)
(703)
(91)
(37)
(362)
(50)
(540)
321
(2,738)

(16)
(44)
(6)
0
17
(1)
9
152
(15)

0
0
0
12
138
51
201
608
1,535

0
0
0
0
48
0
48
187
259

(270)
(703)
(91)
(37)
(362)
(39)
(529)
479
(2,319)

(16)
(44)
(6)
0
17
(1)
9
184
17

Plymouth County
Southeast Region
Berkshire County
Franklin County
Hampden County
Hampshire County
West Region
DOC Pre-release
TOTALS

Source: Carter Goble Lee; Percentages of 22% of county-sentenced bedspace needs;16.5% applied to DOC sentenced bedspace needs.

- 128 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Components of the Plan – Male Pre-release
As an important criteria for the success of pre-release and re-entry programs is their ability to provide a connection to
community resources for inmates while still incarcerated, the CMP recommends aligning the pre-release bedspace
needs in facilities as close to the originating communities as possible. As previously discussed in this Chapter, due to
the smaller numbers of women inmates, providing the quality and number of programs for the multiple small facilities
that would be required if all communities had women pre-release facilities is more difficult. Therefore, for women,
some regionalization is recommended in order to provide the needed programs close to the inmates‟ originating
communities. Since these women facilities were previously outlined in the Women‟s section of this Chapter, the
remainder of this discussion will focus on men‟s pre-release bedspaces only.
By comparing Tables 5.1-32 and 5.1-33, the impact of the current and proposed classification systems on a
jurisdictional level can be evaluated. Critical points focused on male pre-release can be summarized as follows:


Pre-release bedspace needs for men are dramatically impacted by the classification system applied, with
the 2020 need for men pre-release bedspaces ranging from 2,395 to 3,854.



The impact of classification on DOC step-down beds required in Sheriff facilities differs among the regions,
with the Northeast and Central Regions experiencing a larger share of these inmates.



Although all regions show a significant need, relatively speaking, the greatest bedspace need is in the
Northeast Region and the lowest need is in the West Region for both classification systems.



Considering existing Sheriff male pre-release facilities, the Northeast Region has the largest CMP Baseline
Capacity at 248, followed by the Central Region at 228, the West Region at 190, and the Southeast Region
with no capacity. The DOC„s minimum/ pre-release CMP Baseline Capacity for men is approx. 450 beds.



With potential capacity improvements, the CMP Baseline Capacity for pre-release can be increased by
approximately 418 beds, 158 beds in DOC facilities and 261 beds in Sheriff facilities.



o

The greatest opportunity to increase Sheriff facilities‟ capacity is in the Northeast Region‟s Essex
Alternative Correctional Center with an additional 154 beds, followed by the Central Region‟s
Norfolk. Jail / HOC with an additional 64 beds and Worcester Co. HOC with an additional 32 beds.

o

The opportunities to increase capacity in DOC minimum/pre-release facilities is at the Boston PreRelease Center with an additional 102 beds, Pondville Correctional Center with 32 additional beds
and Northeastern Correctional Center with an additional 24 beds.

Regional shortfalls are impacted by the classification system applied.
o

If all existing pre-release facilities were kept in use including DOC facilities, the combined DOC /
Sheriff pre-release bedspace shortfall for men will range between 860 to 2,319 bedspaces with
potential capacity improvements or between 1,279 to 2,738 bedspaces without any improvements.

o

With the current classification system and based on CMP Baseline Capacity, the Northeast has the
greatest shortfall (539), followed by the Southeast Region (467), the Central Region (397) and the
West Region (301). Based on Potential Capacity, the Southeast Region has the greatest male prerelease bedspace shortfall (467), followed by the Northeast Region (385), the Central Region (301)
and finally the West Region (290).
- 129 -

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

o

With the proposed classification system and based on CMP Baseline Capacity, the greatest
shortfall remains in the Northeast Region (1,033), followed by the Central Region (782), the
Southeast Region (703) and finally the West Region (540). With potential capacity improvements,
the Northeast Region‟s shortfall can be reduced to 879 but remains the largest shortfall. With no
existing bedspaces in the Southeast Region, there is no Potential Capacity and the shortfall of 703
becomes the second largest. With potential capacity improvements, the Central Region can be
reduced to 686 and the West Region can be reduced to 529.

o

With the implementation of a more aggressive DOC step-down into Sheriff facilities, the DOC will
experience a surplus ranging from 321 to 584 beds without any improvements. This implies that
either these facilities should be used for pre-release for the region where they are located or they
should be repurposed as minimum custody bedspaces. Tables 5.1-32 and 5.1-33 assume that
these beds will be used to offset the pre-release bedspace shortfalls of their respective regions.

With a total male pre-release bedspace need for men of 2,395 assuming continuation of the current classification
system or 3,854 with the proposed classification system, the shortfalls for pre-release bedspace are significant.
The CMP recommends the continued use of DOC and Sheriff department bedspaces currently designated for eligible
pre-release inmates in addition to new bedspaces in either renovated structures, new structures or leased facilities.
Further, since these spaces would ideally be located near town centers with employment and educational
opportunities as well as community resources, leasing facilities may be possible and desirable.
Although these calculations do not consider program space needs at existing facilities, for all facilities except the
Hampden County Jail/ HOC, the CMP Baseline Capacity pre-release bedspaces are lower than the current bed
count. Potential Capacities are higher than current beds at the Boston Pre-release Center, Pondville Correctional
Center, and the Hampden County Jail & HOC pre-release bedspaces. Program space requirements at existing
facilities must be examined on a facility basis prior to making any targeted capacity improvements.
In order to assess the order of magnitude of pre-release beds on a regional basis, DOC pre-release bedspace
capacity has been added into the regions where they are located in Tables 5.1-34 and 5.1-35; Boston Pre-release in
the Northeast Region, NECC and Pondville in the Central Region. DOC bedspace needs have been assigned to the
Central Region in these tables, resulting in a surplus of pre-release bedspaces with the current classification system.
Table 5.1-34 Men Pre-Release Beds by Region
Current Classification
Jurisdiction

Sheriffs
DOC
Northeast Region
Sheriffs
DOC
Central Region
Sheriffs
Southeast Region
Sheriffs
West Region
Totals

2020
Pre-release
Bedspace
Need
787
787
625
24
649
467
467
491
491
2,395

CMP
Baseline
Capacity
248
136
384
228
314
542
0
0
190
190
1,116

2020
Shortfall
CMP
Capacity

Potential
Capacity

(539)
136
(403)
(397)
290
(107)
(467)
(467)
(301)
(301)
(1,279)

402
238
640
324
370
694
0
0
201
201
1,535

Table 5.1-35 Men Pre-Release Beds by Region
Proposed Classification

2020
Shortfall
Potential
Capacity

Jurisdiction

Sheriffs
DOC
Northeast Region
Sheriffs
DOC
Central Region
Sheriffs
Southeast Region
Sheriffs
West Region
Totals

(385)
238
(147)
(301)
346
45
(467)
(467)
(290)
(290)
(860)

2020
Pre-release
Bedspace
Need
1,281
1,281
1,010
129
1,140
703
703
730
730
3,854

CMP
Baseline
Capacity
248
136
384
228
314
542
0
0
190
190
1,116

2020
Shortfall
CMP
Capacity
(1,033)
136
(897)
(782)
185
(598)
(703)
(703)
(540)
(540)
(2,738)

Potential
Capacity
402
238
640
324
370
694
0
0
201
201
1,535

2020
Shortfall
Potential
Capacity
(879)
238
(641)
(686)
241
(446)
(703)
(703)
(529)
(529)
(2,319)

- 130 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Phasing of the Recommended Plan
With a range of activities offered, the pre-release/reentry facilities should also offer a range of accommodation types
from minimum custody housing to independent living where inmates are responsible for all activities of daily living,
including the preparation of meals and transportation to employment of education sites. Facilities should provide a
range of sizes and types of housing, ranging in size from 50 to 200 beds.
Assuming a gradual shift from the current classification system towards the proposed classification system, the male
pre-release bedspace need will approach 3,854 bedspaces with a shortfall of approximately 1,862 bedspaces after
potential capacity improvements are implemented and surplus general custody beds in the Southeast region are
repurposed. Because potential sentencing reform may result in an increase of inmates eligible for pre-release as well
as a more widespread use of electronic monitoring devices, the impact on pre-release needs is not easily predicted.
Additionally, the implementation of „Community Custody‟ can potentially impact the pre-release bedspace need. In a
Second Chance Act Grant, Hampden County, EOPSS and the DOC will focus on developing a Regional Re-entry
Imitative that could serve as a model for other regions. Implementation of these initiatives as well as continued
classification reform could have a significant impact on pre-release bedspace needs. With limited resources and the
undetermined impact of initiatives, 3,200 total pre-release bedspaces is a reasonable goal, less than the proposed
classification system would suggest but slightly more than the current classification would require. This would require
the addition of 1,200 new bedspaces.
As part of the Phase 1 Implementation Plan, the CMP recommends the addition of 600 pre-release bedspaces,
spread out across the regions to supplement existing bedspaces. Table 5.1-36 illustrates the distribution of new prerelease bedspaces by region. As these new pre-release bedspaces will not address the total needs of every Sheriff
and the DOC, the addition of new beds should be considered for use by multiple jurisdictions in the region.
Governance, formal agreements, and eligibility criteria must be negotiated to ensure the success of this strategy. In
the Southeast Region where no existing beds are designated as pre-release, an anticipated surplus of approx. 458
general custody bedspaces is recommended for repurposing as pre-release bedspaces as shown in the table below.
Table 5.1-36 Men Pre-Release Beds by Region – Phase 1
Jurisdiction

2020 Pre-release Bedspace
Current Classification
Need

Repurposed

2020 Pre-release Bedspace
Proposed Classification

Shortfall

Need

Repurposed

Pre-release Bedspaces
Phase 1

Pre-release Bedspace Goals

Shortfall

Existing

Repurposed

New

Total

Existing

New

Total

Northeast Region
Essex
Suffolk
DOC

787

(147)

1,281

(641)

640
328
74
238

410

1,050

640

200

840

Central Region
Middlesex
Norfolk
Worcester
DOC

649

45

1,140

(446)

694
116
128
80
370

206

900

694

100

794

Southeast Region
Barnstable County
Bristol County
Dukes County
Plymouth County
DOC

467

(9)

703

(246)

0

142

600

458

200

658

West Region
Berkshire County
Franklin County
Hampden County
Hampshire County
DOC
TOTALS

491

424

625

201

100

301

1,182

3,175

1,993

600

2,593

458

458

2,395

458

458

458
(290)

730

(447)

3,854

458

458

458
(529)

201
0
12
138
51

(1,861)

1,535

458

Notes: Southeast Region surplus of general custody beds repurposed for pre-release; Surplus of pre-release beds in Central Region not used to offset total shortfall in Current Classification scenario

- 131 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

The decision of the final size of any purpose-built facility can be made after consideration of other variables such as
site size and the availability of structures that could be modified for this use. In Figure 5.1-3, the general locations of
the pre-release/reentry bedspaces as part of the CMP Phase 1 are shown. Final sites /locations for new facilities are
still to be determined. Since the number of beds to be added beyond Phase 1 is dependent on future initiatives
regarding the classification system, policies, and proposed legislation, only the anticipated range of bedspaces
needed for each region has been indicated.
Figure 5.1-3 General Locations for New Pre-Release/Reentry Facilities

- 132 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT POPULATION
In the CMP, treatment populations are confined to programs that are residential-based and housed in purpose-built
or designated facilities. While the DOC and Sheriffs currently operate treatment programs in a variety of housing
units, these are not part of the specific capital plan that addresses purpose-built environments.
Similarly, sex offender treatment can involve several phases: Pre-treatment Phase (currently provided at MCI Norfolk
and NCCI), Core Treatment Phase (Second Stage treatment currently provided at MTC), and Maintenance Phase
(currently provided at NCCI). In the context of this section, the Sex Offender Treatment Population includes those in
DOC‟s 30 month Core Treatment Phase. In defining the approach, the CMP accepts the bedspace need does not
represent the universe of all the criminally charged sex offenders in the system, but merely the number expected to
be in intensive treatment programming and, therefore, candidates for purpose-built or specially designated facilities.
Planning Basis
In the context of a CMP, sex offenders fall into two categories: 1) those that have been charged with a criminal
offense and are voluntarily participating in treatment programs and 2) those that have completed their sentence for a
criminal sexual offence but are either considered a continued risk to the community or did not participate in a
treatment program. This latter category, referred to as „sexually dangerous persons‟, are “civil commitments” as they
are recommitted to the DOC on a bench warrant (civil charge) and not a criminal charge. These two categories
currently total approximately 627 inmates, of which approximately 47% are civilly committed. Furthermore, DOC
reports that sex offenders held at the DOC are almost always male.
As previously discussed, the CMP recommends the re-assignment of civil commitments to more appropriate
agencies that currently provide similar services, security requirements permitting. The transfer of the approximately
295 „sexually dangerous persons‟ currently housed in DOC facilities to the jurisdiction of the DMH is also
recommended, assuming the result would be a more cost-effective delivery of treatment with potential reimbursement
otherwise not available when held in DOC‟s custody. Given the stigma associated with this population, transferring of
these „sexually dangerous persons‟ may prove difficult. However, the projected bedspaces (approximately 671) of all
civil commitments would add an additional 46% to DOC‟s estimated bedspace shortfall. The bedspace projections for
the sex offender treatment population, including the civil commitments are summarized in Table 5.1-37.
Table 5.1-37 Special Treatment Bedspace Needs for Sex Offender Population

Sex Offenders - criminal sentences
Sexually Dangerous - civil commitments
Combined Total Beds

2009 ADP

2020
Bedspace
Need

332
295
627

353
247
599

Source: Carter Goble Lee; June 2009
Criminal offenders 2008 ADP includes 1/3 of NCCI's ADP

Currently the majority of sex offenders (those in the Core Treatment Program) and all the sexually dangerous civil
commitments are housed at the Massachusetts Treatment Center which recorded 579 beds in 2008, 48 beds below
the ADP. With a CMP Baseline Capacity of 417 and a Potential Capacity of 557, MTC has limited capacity for growth.
Absent the successful reallocation of the civilly committed population to DMH, the bedspace need increases to
approximately 599 special treatment bedspaces.
- 133 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Components of the Recommended Plan
The approach to sex offender treatment is diverse between states. In some instances, sex offenders involved in
intensive treatment are removed from the general population and located in a therapeutic community while other
jurisdictions integrate the offenders with the general population, but offer separate, specialized treatment programs.
Based on the treatment phase, the DOC separates some offenders while integrating others into the general
population. As the Special Treatment population in the context of the CMP includes only those in the Core Treatment
Program, these offenders are assumed to continue to be housed and treated apart from the general population.
The CMP does not recommend a single best approach but suggests that the need for specialized sex offender
treatment will involve approximately 599 bedspaces. Depending on whether the civil commitments are transferred,
the bedspace need and approach could vary. Three possible approaches to housing and treating these populations
include:
4. Reuse existing facilities:
Continue to use all of the existing Massachusetts Treatment Center (MTC) for specialized sex offender
programming. MTC has a Potential Capacity of 557 bedspaces, of which a portion (353) could be devoted
to the specialized sex offender treatment housing, leaving the remaining 204 beds for other specialized
treatment programming. If civil commitments remain in DOC‟s care, they would continue to occupy a portion
of MTC, however by 2020 there would be a shortfall of approx. 42 bedspaces.
5. Build into new facilities:
To provide the projected bedspaces of 353 sex offenders (and 247 civilly committed if required) into the
proposed new DOC medical/mental health facilities that would increase their proposed size. Another option
is to build a new facility for this population.
6. Combined repurposing and new facilities/ expansions:
Repurpose and expand Bridgewater State Hospital (258 Potential Capacity beds) site for criminally
sentenced sexual offenders (and civil commitments if required), allowing the repurposing of MTC as a
medium custody facility for general population inmates.
While Sheriffs incarcerate sex offenders on a pretrial status prior to adjudication and may incarcerate sex offenders
through a reentry program before release, Sheriff facilities are not seen to be a part of housing the intensive
treatment environments for the sex offenders. The highly specialized nature of sex offender treatment programs,
coupled with the concern for locating sex offender facilities argues for the use of existing DOC treatment facilities or
the inclusion of the program in one of the proposed medical/mental health facilities.

- 134 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

SUMMARY OF SPECIAL POPULATION BEDSPACE NEEDS
Tables 5.1-38 and 5.1-39 below summarize the bedspace needs for special populations discussed in Part 1 of this
Chapter, applying current and proposed classification systems.
Table 5.1- 38 Special Population Bedspace Needs for 2020 - Current Classification
Special Needs Populations excluding civil commitments
Women
Pretrial
Sentenced Secure Beds (Med & MH beds incl. below)
Pre-release ( Incl. in Pre-release count below)
Medical / Mental Health
Sub-acute Medical - Men
Sub-acute Medical -Women
Sub-acute Mental Health - Men
Sub-acute Mental Health-Women
Pre-Release/Reentry
Men
Women
Sex Offenders
Criminal Sentenced
TOTAL

Total
Bedspaces
Needed for 2020

1,416
492
924
202
1,271
603
32
603
32
2,597
2,395
202
353
353
5,636

Repurposed
Existing
Potential
Capacity
Bedspaces

Existing
Potential
Capacity
Bedspaces

New
Bedspaces
Needed

Totals

924

187

321

1,432

924

187

321

1,432

-

-

1,271

1,271

0

0

635

635

0

0

635

635

1,607
1,535
72
353
353
2,884

520
458
62
-

561
447
114
-

707

2,152

2,687
2,439
248
353
353
5,742

Notes: Assumes all new sub-acute medical & mental health beds - exist. beds have not been deducted from general capacity counts; Repurposed beds: Women pre-lease @
Barnstable, Berkshire and Bristol; SE Region male general custody surplus repurposed as pre-release; MTC for Sex Offenders

Table 5.1-39 Special Population Bedspace Needs for 2020 - Proposed Classification
Special Needs Populations excluding civil commitments
Women
Pretrial
Sentenced Secure Beds ( Med & MH beds incl. below)
Pre-release ( Incl. in Pre-release count below)
Medical / Mental Health
Sub-acute Medical - Men
Sub-acute Medical -Women
Sub-acute Mental Health - Men
Sub-acute Mental Health-Women
Pre-Release/Reentry
Men
Women
Sex Offenders
Criminal Sentenced
TOTAL

Total
Bedspaces
Needed for 2020

1,376
492
883
242
1,271
603
32
603
32
4,096
3,854
242
353
353
7,096

Existing
Potential
Capacity
Bedspaces

Repurposed
Existing
Potential
Capacity
Bedspaces

New
Bedspaces
Needed

924

187

319

1,430

924

187

319

1,430

-

-

1,271

1,271

Totals

0

0

635

635

0

0

635

635

1,607
1,535
72
353
353
2,884

520
458
62
-

2,012
1,861
151
-

707

3,602

4,139
3,854
285
353
353
7,192

Notes: Assumes all new sub-acute medical & mental health beds - exist. beds have not been deducted from general capacity counts; Repurposed beds: Women prelease @ Barnstable, Berkshire and Bristol; SE Region male general custody surplus repurposed as pre-release; MTC for Sex Offenders

- 135 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Observations from Tables 5.1-38 and 5.1-39 are outlined below:


Special populations will require between 5,742 and 7,192 bedspaces by 2020. Of these bedspaces, 2,152
would be new bedspaces in the current classification system and 3,602 in the proposed classification
system.



The proposed classification system scenario requires the addition of more new bedspaces for special
populations due to the increase of inmates eligible for pre-release resulting from a less risk-averse system.



Although the proposed classification requires more pre-release bedspaces than the current classification
system, providing these new male pre-release beds would make more existing „secure‟ bedspaces available
for the large male general custody population.



Due to locations and types of existing bedspaces, both systems result in bedspaces beyond the projected
need. These additional bedspaces are as follows:
o

Current Classification System: approx. 108 bedspaces
 Women: 63 bedspaces (17 secure and 46 pre-release)
- Barnstable (4 secure, 2 pre-release)
- Hampden (17 pre-release)
- Berkshire (10 secure, 5 pre-release)
- MCI Framingham /SMCC (3 secure)
- Bristol (22 Pre-release)
 Male Pre-release: (45 bedspaces)
- Central Region

o

Proposed Classification System: 99 bedspaces
 Women: 99 bedspaces (54 secure and 43 pre-release)
- Barnstable (4 secure, 1 pre-release)
- Hampden (17 pre-release)
- Berkshire (10 secure, 4 pre-release)
- MCI Framingham /SMCC (42 secure)
- Bristol (21 Pre-release)

- 136 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Part 2: General Custody
As discussed in the Part 1 of this Chapter, the greatest need in the Commonwealth‟s correctional system is for special
needs population bedspaces. These bedspaces are for offenders that are excluded from the large male general
population for any number of reasons including gender, illness, vulnerability, treatment needs, and pre-release
preparation. Due to the shortage of these bedspaces in the system currently, most of the capital funds in this plan are
focused on meeting the incarceration requirements of the special needs populations. By removing the special
populations from general custody facilities, facility operations can be more efficient, additional bedspaces can be made
available for the general custody populations within existing facilities, and special needs populations can be addressed
more cost-effectively and more efficiently in specialized and consolidated facilities.
General custody embraces all levels of security classification from minimum to maximum. In the context of the CMP,
general custody also includes inmates that must be segregated due to behavior and disciplinary reasons. While
these high-risk, difficult-to-manage inmates are often characterized as “special management”, within the context of
the CMP, these inmates are accounted for within the general custody category. General custody, for purposes of this
discussion, includes the general population of sentenced male inmates and pretrial male detainees (excluding civil
commitments, pre-release, sex offender treatment population, and inmates requiring sub-acute medical or mental health
care).
Planning Basis
Depending on the classification system applied, male general custody bedspaces will represent between 74% and
79% of the system‟s total bedspaces in 2020. The determination of the general custody bedspace requirements was
based on the following basic steps:
1. Bedspace Need:
a. Determine the total estimated bedspace need by 2020, broken down by jurisdiction.
b. Establish the bedspace needs for civil commitments and special needs offenders (women, subacute medical and mental health, pre-release and sex offenders).
c. Subtract the special needs population bedspaces from the total projected bedspace need in order
to determine the general custody bedspace need.
2. Bedspace Capacity:
a. Establish the CMP Baseline Capacity and Potential Capacity for existing facilities by jurisdiction
and custody level.
3. Bedspace Shortfall:
a. Calculate bedspace shortfalls by jurisdiction, region, and custody level.
The 2020 estimated total bedspace need was calculated (discussed in Chapter 1) and special needs populations
disaggregated (discussed in Part 1 of this Chapter), applying the current classification system as well as a proposed
classification system. As previously noted, the classification system has a significant impact on the type of bedspace
needs. Tables 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 summarize these results.
The total bedspace need for sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees is almost 27,000 bedspaces, excluding civil
commitments. Special needs bedspaces comprising of women beds, medical sub-acute beds, mental health sub-acute
- 137 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

beds, sex offenders and pre-release bedspaces total 5,636 if the current classification system is applied and 7,096
under the proposed classification system, the difference a result of more pre-release beds in the proposed classification
system. The resulting need for male general custody „secure beds‟ in 2020 is projected to range from 19,895 bedspaces
to 21,355 bedspaces, a difference of almost 1,500 (1,460) secure bedspaces.
Table 5.2-1 Total Male General Custody Bedspace Need
Current Classification

Table 5.2-2 Total Male General Custody Bedspace Need
Proposed Classification

2020
Bedspaces

Type Bedspace

2020
Bedspaces

Type Bedspace

Total Bedspace Need for Pretrial and Sentenced
Populations

Total Bedspace Need for Pretrial and Sentenced
Populations
26,991

(exlcudes Acute Care & Civil Commitments)

26,991

(exlcudes Acute Care & Civil Commitments)

Special Needs Bedspace Needs

Special Needs Bedspace Needs

(Includes
Women, Sub-acute Medical & Mental Health, Pre-release, and Sex
Offenders)

(Includes
Women, Sub-acute Medical & Mental Health, Pre-release, and Sex
Offenders)

-5,636

Male General Custody Secure Beds

-7,096

Male General Custody Secure Beds

(excludes Pre-release)

21,355

(excludes Pre-release)

19,895

The total estimated bedspace need of 26,991 (27,662 with civil commitments) is disaggregated in Tables 5.2-3 and
5.2.4 by jurisdiction and bedspace type. The bedspace needs are assigned based on jurisdictional responsibility. In
other words, bedspace needs are based on populations assigned to the responsible jurisdiction and not necessarily
where they are currently being housed. The only exception is the Section 52A‟s (pretrial detainees who have previously
served a State sentence), who are considered under the jurisdiction of Sheriff departments but have been included in
the DOC pretrial bedspace needs in the following tables. Subsequent tables distribute these detainees to respective
Sheriff departments.
With the total estimated bedspace need constant, these tables illustrate the shift in the type of bedspace needs resulting
from classification. As more inmates are classified for pre-release, the need for „secure‟ bedspaces reduces. Secure
bedspaces are pretrial and sentenced beds within the secure perimeter. The focus of this section includes the pretrial
and general population secure bedspace needs.

9,351
844
10,194
20,240
1,190
21,430

12,068
1,151
13,218
22,914
1,480
24,394

14,125
1,336
15,461
25309
1682
26,991

166
17
183

242
242

Medical / MH Acute
Care Bedspace Need

2,057
186
2,243
2,395
202
2,597

242
242

Total CMP Housing
w/ civil commitments

7,293
658
7,952
17,845
988
18,833

166
17
183

247
247

654
17
671

11,838
363
12,201

112
3
115

247
247

14,125
1,336
15,461
654 25,963
17 1,700
671 27,662

141
13
155
253
17
270

Sexually Dangerous

11,184
346
11,530

Mentally Ill

10,846
330
11,176

Substance Abuse

10,889
346
11,235

Civil Commitments

Total Civil
Commitments

353
353

Total CMP Housing
Sentenced + Pretrial

0
0

Sentenced and Pretrial

212
20
232
603
32
635

338
16
354

Total Secure Beds:

212
20
232
603
32
635

Total Sentenced

6,870
618
7,488
16,286
924
17,209

(DOC 16.5% ; Sheriffs
22%)

4,774
492
5,267
5,069
492
5,561

353

10,552
330
10,881

Pre-Release

391
12
404

Total Secure
Sentenced Beds

Medical
Sub-Acute Beds

391
12
404

353

295

9,416
306
9,722

295

Sex Offenders
in Treatment

Mental Health
Sub-Acute Beds

DOC
Men
Women
Subtotal
Sheriffs
Men
Women
Subtotal
Total Men
Total Women
Totals

Sentenced
Secure Beds

General
Population

Pretrial (52A's in DOC)

Table 5.2-3
Disaggregation of 2020 Bedspace Needs by Jurisdiction – Current Classification

- 138 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

247

242

247

6,870
618
7,488
14,827
883
15,710

212
20
232
603
32
635

212
20
232
603
32
635

0
0

7,293
658
7,952
16,386
948
17,334

2,057
186
2,243
3,854
242
4,096

9,351
844
10,194
20,240
1,190
21,430

12,068
1,151
13,218
21,455
1,440
22,895

14,125
1,336
15,461
25309
1682
26,991

0
0

0
0

0
0

353
353

166
17
183

242
242

247
247

Mentally Ill

4,774
492
5,267
5,069
492
5,561

353

Medical / MH Acute
Care Bedspace Need

242

Total CMP Housing
w/ civil commitments

166
17
183

Total Civil
Commitments

Total CMP Housing
Sentenced + Pretrial
11,184
346
11,530

Sexually Dangerous

Sentenced and Pretrial

9,387
290
9,677

Substance Abuse

Total Sentenced
10,889
346
11,235

Total Secure Beds:

(DOC 16.5% ; Sheriffs
22%)

1,797
57
1,853

Pre-Release

391
12
404

Civil Commitments

9,092
290
9,382

Total Secure
Sentenced Beds

Medical
Sub-Acute Beds

391
12
404

353

295

7,957
265
8,222

295

Sex Offenders
in Treatment

Mental Health
Sub-Acute Beds

DOC
Men
Women
Subtotal
Sheriffs
Men
Women
Subtotal
Total Men
Total Women
Total

Sentenced
Secure Beds

General
Population

Pretrial (52A's in DOC)

Table 5.2-4
Disaggregation of 2020 Bedspace Needs by Jurisdiction – Proposed Classification

654
17
671

11,838
363
12,201

112
3
115

654
17
671

14,125
1,336
15,461
25,963
1,700
27,662

141
13
155
253
17
270

In order to understand the implications on a regional basis and to compare bedspace capacity at facilities, Tables 5.2-5
and 5.2-6 summarize Sheriff bedspace needs by regions, including the transfer of DOC step-down inmates into Sheriff
facilities and the removal of sub-acute medical and mental health needs inmates out of Sheriff facilities to separate
regional facilities. Section 52A‟s are also distributed into Sheriff facilities based on historical trends. The majority of 52A
detainees historically come from Suffolk County, followed by Middlesex County and Worcester County. Smaller
numbers of 52A detainees have historically come from Norfolk, Bristol, and Plymouth Counties.
Table 5.2-5
2020 Bedspace Male Bedspace Needs by Jurisdiction – Current Classification
Pretrial
2020

Jurisdictional
Sheriff
Sentenced Beds
Pre-Release
2020
Beds
(incl. special
2020
needs )

DOC
Step-down
2020

Total
Pre-release
Beds
2020

Essex
Suffolk
Northeast Region
Middlesex County
Norfolk County
Worcester County
Central Region
Barnstable County
Bristol County
Dukes County
Plymouth County
Southeast Region
Berkshire County
Franklin County
Hampden County
Hampshire County
West Region

723
656
1,379
438
279
616
1,333
170
604
2
248
1,024
113
91
783
52
1,038

1,380
1,680
3,061
1,022
491
923
2,436
352
770
33
719
1,875
284
173
1,194
328
1,979

304
370
673
225
108
203
536
77
169
7
158
412
63
38
263
72
435

28
86
114
39
14
36
89
7
27
0
21
55
5
2
45
3
55

332
455
787
264
121
240
625
84
196
7
179
467
68
40
307
76
491

65
76
141
47
24
49
119
16
43
1
30
91
12
8
62
12
94

DOC

949
5,723

10,889
20,240

2,057

24
338

24
2,395

761
1,207

TOTALS

Sentenced
Secure
General
Population
Beds
2020

Regional
Sub-acute
Medical & MH
Sex
Beds
Offenders
(incl. DOC
Stepdown)

1,014
1,240
2,254
754
360
674
1,787
259
559
25
532
1,375
210
127
872
245
1,453
353
353

9,416
16,286

Pretrial
52A's

General
Custody
2020
(incl. Pretrial)

Total
Secure +
Pre-release
2020
(exl special
populations)

0

1,737
2,064
3,801
1,286
641
1,313
3,241
429
1,166
27
783
2,405
322
218
1,655
296
2,491

2,069
2,519
4,588
1,550
763
1,553
3,866
513
1,363
34
962
2,872
390
258
1,962
372
2,982

295

9,416
21,355

9,440
23,749

168
168
94
3
24
121
3
3
6

Note: DOC pretrial column includes civil commitments and Section 52A's

- 139 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5
Table 5.2-6
2020 Male Bedspace Needs by Jurisdiction – Proposed Classification
Pretrial
2020

Jurisdictional
Sheriff
Sentenced Beds
Pre-Release
2020
Beds
(incl. special
2020
needs )

DOC
Step-down
2020

Total
Pre-release
Beds
2020

Essex
Suffolk
Northeast Region
Middlesex County
Norfolk County
Worcester County
Central Region
Barnstable County
Bristol County
Dukes County
Plymouth County
Southeast Region
Berkshire County
Franklin County
Hampden County
Hampshire County
West Region

723
656
1,379
438
279
616
1,333
170
604
2
248
1,024
113
91
783
52
1,038

1,380
1,680
3,061
1,022
491
923
2,436
352
770
33
719
1,875
284
173
1,194
328
1,979

304
370
673
225
108
203
536
77
169
7
158
412
63
38
263
72
435

151
456
607
208
72
194
474
36
144
0
111
291
29
11
237
18
295

455
826
1,281
433
180
397
1,010
113
313
7
270
703
91
49
500
90
730

74
102
176
58
28
60
146
18
51
1
37
107
14
9
76
13
111

DOC

949
5,723

10,889
20,240

2,057

129
1,797

129
3,854

666
1,207

TOTALS

Sentenced
Secure
General
Population
Beds
2020

Regional
Sub-acute
Medical & MH
Sex
Beds
Offenders
(incl. DOC
Stepdown)

Pretrial
52A's

1,014
1,240
2,254
754
360
674
1,787
259
559
25
532
1,375
210
127
872
245
1,453
353
353

General
Custody
2020

7,957
14,827

(incl. Pretrial)

Total
Secure +
Pre-release
2020
(exl special
populations)

0

1,737
2,064
3,801
1,286
641
1,313
3,241
429
1,166
27
783
2,405
322
218
1,655
296
2,491

2,192
2,890
5,082
1,720
821
1,710
4,251
543
1,479
34
1,053
3,109
414
267
2,155
386
3,221

295

7,957
19,895

8,086
23,749

168
168
94
3
24
121
3
3
6

Note: DOC pretrial column includes civil commitments and Section 52A's

For Sheriff departments, the general custody bedspace needs are the same in both DOC classification scenarios; only
the pre-release / DOC step-down bedspace needs increase by almost 1,500. The DOC‟s general custody bedspace
need decreases by the same 1,500 bedspace needs.
With the 2020 general custody bedspace needs defined, a comparison of CMP Baseline and Potential Capacity for
existing facilities is required in order to assess bedspace shortfalls. Since male general custody bedspaces, in the
context of the CMP, include all custody levels except pre-release, evaluating male general custody bedspace capacity in
Sheriff facilities is fairly straightforward as units within Sheriff facilities, in large part, are operated at whatever custody
levels required by their current population. To assess Sheriff general custody capacity, only the subtraction of prerelease bedspace capacity and women bedspace capacity is the required. However, since each DOC facility is
classified at a specific custody level, evaluation of the capacity at each custody level within the DOC is required prior to
assessing the projected bedspace shortfalls.
Table 5.2-7 illustrates the current disaggregation of bedspaces by custody levels, including Current Beds, CMP Baseline
Capacity, and Potential Capacity for each custody level. Sex offender bedspaces have been excluded.
Table 5.2-7
Existing Male DOC Bedspace Capacity by Custody Level
Current Beds

Male Bedspaces only
Custody Level

Bedspace
Count

Maximum Custody
Medium Custody
Minimum Custody
Minimum/Pre-Release Custody
Male DOC Beds

1,975
6,699
1,018
647
10,339

% of Total
Male
Bedspaces
19%
66%
8%
7%
100%

CMP Baseline Capacity
Bedspace
Count
1,531
3,425
838
450
6,244

Potential Capacity

% of Total
Male
Bedspaces

Bedspace
Count

25%
57%
11%
7%
100%

2,869
4,319
1,036
608
8,832

% of Total
Male
Bedspaces
35%
47%
10%
8%
100%

- 140 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

As Table 5.2-7 illustrates, the greatest reduction of DOC male bedspaces in the CMP Baseline Capacity occurs in the
Medium Custody level (-3,274 bedspaces). Although there are opportunities to increase Potential Capacity in all custody
levels [Maximum Custody bedspaces (+1,338), Medium (+894), Minimum (+198) and Minimum / Pre-release (+158)],
even with potential capacity improvements the greatest reduction in DOC‟s current beds will occur in Medium Custody
bedspaces. In part, this analysis indicates that the current bedspaces in the Medium Custody facilities are most deficient
with respect to the CMP Baseline Capacity criteria of unencumbered cell space, dayroom area per inmate and plumbing
fixture counts.
Table 5.2-8 illustrates the breakdown of DOC„s existing Male General Custody and pre-release bedspaces at each
facility. Special population bedspaces have been excluded. Virtually all DOC male custody facilities have a reduced
CMP Baseline Capacity (except OCCC Minimum) although half of the facilities can gain beds with potential capacity
improvements. Considering only general custody bedspaces (excluding Minimum/Pre-release) only 5 male custody
facilities have the greater potential capacity than current beds, one Maximum Custody (Souza Baronowski), MCI Shirley
Medium and three Minimum (MCI Plymouth, MCI Shirley and NCCI). In other words, although there are opportunities in
DOC facilities to increase capacity without the addition of new beds, there will still be a reduction in current capacity.
Table 5.2-8
Existing Male DOC Bedspace Capacity by Custody Level and Facility
Current Beds
Facility

ADP 2009

Pre-release
Beds

CMP Baseline Capacity

General
Custody
Beds

Pre-release
Beds

General
Custody
Beds

Potential Capacity
Pre-release
Beds

General
Custody
Beds

Design
Capacity
10/2009
(incl. special
populations)

The Department of Correction
Maximum Custody
MCI Cedar Junction
Souza Baranowski Correctional Center
Sub Total - Maximum Custody
Medium Custody
Bay State Correctional Center
Bridgewater State Hospital
L. Shattuck Hospital Correctional Unit
Massachusetts Treatment Center *
MCI Concord
MCI Framingham
MCI Norfolk
MCI Shirley (Medium)
North Central Correctional Institute
Old Colony Correctional Center
Southeastern Correctional Center
Sub Total - Medium Custody
Minimum Custody
Mass Alcohol & Substance Abuse Center
MCI Plymouth
MCI Shirley (Minimum)
North Central Correctional Institute
Old Colony Correctional Center
Sub Total - Minimum Custody
Minimum/Pre-Release Custody
Boston Pre-Release Center
Northeastern Correctional Center
South Middlesex Correctional Center
Pondville Correctional Center
Sub Total - Minimum /Pre-release
Total Department of Correction

676
1,243
1,919

0

695
1,280
1,975

314
318
Special population only
Special population only
627
226
1,303
1,368
Special population- women only
1,511
1,472
1,198
1,547
1,000
948
812
820
NA
NA
NA
6,765
0
6,699
139
205
276
30
156
806

-

236
250
342
30
160
1,018

189
175
267
268
Special population- women only
193
204
649
647
0
10,139
647
9,692

565
2,304
2,869

633
1,024
1,657

166

166

266

64
595

204
595

561
614

0

894
1,040
426
240
NA
3,425

0

1,074
1,560
450
270
NA
4,319

1,084
720
568
480
NA
4,293

0

150
160
306
30
192
838

0

150
294
370
30
192
1,036

236
151
249
30
100
-

0

379
1,152
1,531

136
136
178
450
450

0

238
160

0
5,794

210
608
608

150
115

0
8,224

100
215
6,165

Note: *Sex offender beds (353) deducted from MTC bed counts

- 141 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Although most facilities house a single custody level, there are a couple of exceptions. DOC has Minimum Custody and
Minimum / Pre-release Custody facilities. Old Colony Correctional Center and MCI Plymouth include some pre-release
bedspaces although these facilities in this analysis are classified as Minimum Custody capacity. All of MASAC
bedspaces are included as general custody, assuming civil commitments currently housed there would be transferred.
For the DOC, the 9,692 current general custody beds (excluding Minimum /Pre-release) decrease to 5,794 when
applying the CMP Baseline Capacity criteria, increasing to 8,224 with potential capacity improvements.
Table 5.2-9 illustrates the breakdown of Sheriff departments‟ existing bedspaces by facility. Special population
bedspaces have been excluded.
Table 5.2-9
Existing Male Sheriff Department Bedspace Capacity by Facility
Current Beds
Facility

ADP 2009
(incl. women)

Pre-release
Beds

CMP Baseline Capacity

General
Custody
Beds

Pre-release
Beds

General
Custody
Beds

Potential Capacity
Pre-release
Beds

General
Custody
Beds

Design
Capacity
10/2009
(incl. special
populations)

Sheriff Departments
Essex HOC - Middleton
Essex-Lawrence Correctional Center
Suffolk County HOC (W)
Suffolk County Jail (Nashua Street)
Northeast Region
Middlesex County HOC
Middlesex County Jail
Norfolk County Jail & HOC
Norfolk Satellite (Braintree)* not in count
Worcester County Jail & HOC
Central Region
Barnstable County Correctional Facility(W)
Barnstable County Correctional Sattelite
Bristol County Jail & HOC ( excl. ICE Bldg)
Bristol County Jail (Ash Street)
Dukes County Jail & HOC
Plymouth County Jail & HOC
Southeast Region
Berkshire County Jail & HOC (W)
Berkshire County - Satellite Facility
Franklin County Jail & HOC (W)
Hampden County Jail & HOC - Ludlow
Hampden County Correctional Alcohol Ctr.
Western MA Reg. Women's Corr. Ctr (W)
Hampshire County Jail & HOC (W)
West Region
Total Sheriffs
Combined DOC and Sheriffs Total

1,185
362
1,698
713
3,958
841
369
647
1,211
3,068
402
NA
1,159
180
30
1,270
3,041
349
NA
268
1,402
174
150
285
2,628
12,695
22,834

340
120
460
116
128
80
324
NA
NA
12
76
-

1,371
1,648
777
3,796
1,067
274
616
1,230
3,187
516
NA
1,076
212
38
1,727
3,569
501
NA
312
1,512
182

174
74
248
116
64
48
228
NA
NA
12
138
-

802
893
432
2,127
568
161
308
764
1,801
356
NA
773
74
26
914
2,143
452
NA
220
960
182

328
74
402
116
128
80
324
NA
NA
12
138
-

915
1,314
442
2,671
871
161
330

500
135
1,146
453
2,234
874
161
302

1,090
2,452
496
NA
825
74
26
1,442
2,863
508
NA
316
960
182

790
2,127
300
NA
360
206
19
1,140
2,025
288
NA
144
1,178
125

46
134
918

228
2,735
13,287

40
190
666

256
2,070
8,141

51
201
927

256
2,222
10,208

248
1,983
8,369

1,565

22,979

1,116

13,935

1,535

18,432

14,534

Source: STV and DCAM; January 2009; (W) indicates women bedspaces in facility were excluded from capacities

Table 5.2-9 illustrates that the CMP Baseline Capacity for general custody bedspaces of Sheriff facilities is less than the
current bedspaces in all but 2 facilities (Hampden Correctional Alcohol Center and Hampshire Jail & HOC). At those
facilities with reduced CMP Baseline Capacity, all but 4 facilities have an increased General Custody Potential Capacity.
The facilities with no increase in Potential Capacity include Middlesex County Jail, Bristol County Jail (Ash Street) ,
Dukes County Jail / HOC and Hampden Co. Jail / HOC. Only 3 facilities, all in the West Region, Berkshire County Jail /
HOC, Franklin County Jail / HOC and Hampshire Jail / HOC, have a Potential Capacity greater than the Current Beds.
- 142 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Bedspace shortfalls can be assessed by comparing the projected bedspace need to the existing bedspace capacity.
For the DOC, considering custody levels for the projected bedspaces is critical in determining shortfalls. Two
approaches have been used to illustrate the implications of the classification system not only on the number of DOC
step-down beds but also on the other custody level bedspaces. The first approach was to apply the current classification
of inmates to the projected bedspaces less the special needs populations.
Table 5.2-10 illustrates the distribution of general custody bedspace need at each custody level based on the current
classification system and deducting special needs populations.
Table 5.2-10
Male DOC Bedspace Needs based on Current Classification

DOC Inmate
Custody Level
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Pre-Release
Total

% of Total
Male
Inmates
19.0%
65.9%
12.0%
3.1%
100%

Male
Bedspace
Needs
2,069
7,176
1,307
338
10,889

General

DOC Male Custody DOC
Male
Special
Populations Bedspace
Need

-157
-877
-102
-338
-1,473

1,912
6,299
1,205
0
9,416

Medical & MH beds were evenly deducted from Maximum, Medium and Minimum

The second approach applied a proposed classification system to the projected bedspaces less the special needs
populations. In 2005, the DOC conducted a comprehensive review of the methods used to classify inmates that
surveyed over 1,000 inmates. This study resulted in recommendations to the classification system that would enable a
substantial shift away from medium custody to the minimum and minimum/pre-release categories. And in fact, the
current classification represents the early progress of these recommendations. Although this study began this shift, the
results have not been fully realized. This trend, which is also occurring in virtually every state, will have a significant role
in re-defining future best use of existing facilities.
Table 5.2-11 illustrates the distribution of bedspace need at each custody level based on the proposed or „target‟
classification system.
Table 5.2-11
Male DOC Bedspace Needs based on Proposed Classification

DOC Inmate
Custody Level
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Pre-Release
Total

% of Total
Male
Inmates
16.0%
54.0%
13.5%
16.5%
100%

Male
Bedspace
Needs
1,742
5,880
1,470
1,797
10,889

General

DOC Male Custody DOC
Male
Special
Populations Bedspace
Need

-168
-818
-149
-1,797
-2,932

1,574
5,062
1,321
0
7,957

Medical & MH beds were evenly deducted from Maximum, Medium and Minimum

While under the current classification system, as shown in Table 5.2-10, the medium custody category reflects 65.9% of
the total DOC population, over time, this percentage could decrease to approximately 54%. In contrast, the percentage
- 143 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

of inmates currently assigned to minimum and minimum/pre-release categories (15.1% total) is projected to increase to
approximately 30% of the total inmates under the proposed classification system. The impact on the number of
bedspaces required at each custody level is considerable. With a total bedspace need differing by approximately 1,500
additional bedspaces (9,416 - 7,957 = 1,459) with the current classification system, the greatest impact is in medium
custody with 1,237 additional beds, followed by maximum with an additional 338 beds. With the current classification
system, there would be a need of 116 fewer minimum custody bedspaces than in the proposed classification system
scenario.
With the bedspace needs disaggregated by custody level, Tables 5.2-12 and 5.2-13 illustrate the bedspace shortfalls,
applying the current and proposed classification systems respectively. Both tables assume DOC step-down into Sheriff
facilities, reducing DOC‟s need for pre-release bedspaces.
Table 5.2-12
DOC Male Bedspace Shortfalls based on Current Classification

Male DOC
General Custody Levels
Maximum Custody
Medium Custody
Minimum Custody
Male General Custody Beds
Minimum/Pre-Release Custody
Totals

2020
Bedspace
Need
1,912
6,299
1,205
9,416
24
9,440

Current
Bedspace
Count
1,975
6,699
1,018
9,692
647
10,339

Bedspace
Shortfall to
Current
Beds
63
400
(187)
276
623
899

CMP
Baseline
Capacity
1,531
3,425
838
5,794
450
6,244

Bedspace
Shortfall to
CMP
Baseline
(381)
(2,874)
(367)
(3,622)
426
(3,196)

Potential
Capacity
2,869
4,319
1,036
8,224
608
8,832

Bedspace
Shortfall to
Potential
Capacity
957
(1,980)
(169)
(1,192)
584
(608)

Table 5.2-13
DOC Male Bedspace Shortfalls based on Proposed Classification

Male DOC
General Custody Levels
Maximum Custody
Medium Custody
Minimum Custody
Male General Custody Beds
Minimum/Pre-Release Custody
Totals

2020
Bedspace
Need
1,574
5,062
1,321
7,957
129
8,086

Current
Bedspace
Count
1,975
6,699
1,018
9,692
647
10,339

Bedspace
Shortfall to
Current
Beds
401
1,637
(303)
1,735
518
2,253

CMP
Baseline
Capacity
1,531
3,425
838
5,794
450
6,244

Bedspace
Shortfall to
CMP
Baseline
(43)
(1,637)
(483)
(2,163)
321
(1,842)

Potential
Capacity
2,869
4,319
1,036
8,224
608
8,832

Bedspace
Shortfall to
Potential
Capacity
1,295
(743)
(285)
267
479
746

Several observations based on the comparison of the male general custody shortfalls in the DOC resulting from the
two classification systems can be summarized below. These shortfalls are a result of the growing general custody
population as well as CMP Baseline Capacity reductions.


With the implementation of potential capacity improvements, the Maximum Custody bedspace need can be
met in existing facilities, Souza Baronowski and MCI Cedar Junction, and could result in a surplus.
However, program and support spaces need to be considered on a facility basis to confirm the feasibility
and determine if additional support space would need to be added. Since this data was collated, MCI Cedar
Junction has been designated as a Reception and Diagnostic Center. As a result, all bedspaces included in
the table above may not be available to house Maximum Custody inmates. Even excluding MCI Cedar
Junction‟s bedspaces from the Maximum Capacity (695 current beds, 379 CMP Baseline Capacity, 565
Potential Capacity), there will be adequate maximum custody bedspaces in 2020.
- 144 -

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5



In both classification systems, with and without potential capacity improvements, there will be a Medium
Custody bedspace shortfall ranging from 743 to 2,874 bedspaces depending on whether potential capacity
improvements are feasible and which classification system is applied. The current classification system
would result in greater shortfalls.



Likewise, there will be bedspace shortfalls in Minimum Custody bedspaces in both classification systems,
with and without potential capacity improvements, ranging from 169 to 483 bedspaces. Unlike Medium
Custody, the greater shortfalls would be experienced under the proposed classification system.



Pre-release bedspaces, with DOC step-down into Sheriff facilities, would be in surplus in both classification
systems, suggesting the repurposing of facilities to minimum custody or a reduced rate of step-down to
Sheriff facilities. These DOC facilities could continue to function in their pre-release capacity and house
eligible inmates originating from the communities where the facilities are located.

As the national trend is moving towards classification systems that yield a greater percentage of pre-release and
minimum custody security levels, one additional analysis was done to assess the impact on DOC male general
custody bedspaces should the classification system move farther than the Proposed Classification system illustrated
above. Table 5.2-14 illustrates the Male DOC Bedspace Needs based on the alternative target classification system.
Table 5.2-14 DOC Male General Custody Bedspace Needs based on Alternative Target Classification

DOC Inmate
Custody Level
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Pre-Release
Total

% of Total
Male
Inmates
15.0%
44.0%
24.5%
16.5%
100%

Male
Bedspace
Needs
1,633
4,791
2,668
1,797
10,889

General

DOC Male Custody DOC
Male
Special
Populations Bedspace
Need

-160
-740
-231
-1,797
-2,928

1,473
4,051
2,437
0
7,961

Medical & MH beds were evenly deducted from Maximum, Medium and Minimum

Comparing this alternative target classification in Table 5.2-14 to the proposed classification in Table 5.2-11, the prerelease beds remain basically the same. What is notable, however, is the rather dramatic shift in the other security
level bedspace needs; Maximum custody need shifts from 1,574 to 1,473; Medium custody shifts from 5,062 to
4,051; and most dramatically, Minimum custody shifts from 1,321 to 2,437. Table 5.2-15 illustrates the bedspace
shortfalls that result from this alternative system.
Table 5.2-15 DOC Male Bedspace Shortfalls based on Alternative Target Classification
Male DOC
General Custody Levels
Maximum Custody
Medium Custody
Minimum Custody
Male General CustodyBeds
Minimum/Pre-Release Custody
Totals

2020
Bedspace
Need
1,473
4,051
2,437
7,961
129
8,090

Current
Bedspace
Count
1,975
6,699
1,018
9,692
647
10,339

Bedspace
Shortfall to
Current
Beds
502
2,648
(1,419)
1,731
518
2,249

CMP
Baseline
Capacity
1,531
3,425
838
5,794
450
6,244

Bedspace
Shortfall to
CMP
Baseline
58
(626)
(1,599)
(2,167)
321
(1,846)

Potential
Capacity
2,869
4,319
1,036
8,224
608
8,832

Bedspace
Shortfall to
Potential
Capacity
1,396
268
(1,401)
263
479
742

- 145 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

The most notable impact on bedspace shortfalls resulting from this alternative target system compared to the
proposed and current systems is the dramatic increase in the Minimum custody level bedspace shortfall (from a
shortfall of 285 to 1,401) that also includes a further increase in the Maximum custody level bedspace surplus (from
1,295 to 1,396) and a reduced shortfall in the Medium custody bedspaces (from a shortfall of 743 to a surplus of
268). Clearly, the impact of the classification system on the future bedspace shortfalls is dramatic and must be
factored into the determination of the types of new bedspaces to be built.
For Sheriff departments, the comparison of the general custody bedspace capacity to the projected bedspace need
requires the deduction of special needs populations. Table 5.2-16 illustrates male general custody bedspace
shortfalls for each Sheriff department, assuming all existing facilities remain in use.
Table 5.2-16 Sheriff Male General Custody Bedspace Shortfalls
Sheriff Departments
Male General Custody
Essex County
Suffolk County
Northeast Region
Middlesex County
Norfolk County
Worcester County
Central Region
Barnstable County
Bristol County
Dukes County
Plymouth County
Southeast Region
Berkshire County
Franklin County
Hampden County
Hampshire County
West Region
Totals

2020
Bedspace
Need
1,737
2,064
3,801
1,286
641
1,313
3,241
429
1,166
27
783
2,405
322
218
1,655
296
2,491
11,939

Current
Bedspace
Count
1,371
2,425
3,796
1,341
616
1,230
3,187
516
1,288
38
1,727
3,569
501
312
1,694
228
2,735
13,287

Bedspace
Shortfall to
Current
Beds
(366)
361
(5)
55
(25)
(83)
(54)
87
122
11
944
1,164
179
94
39
(68)
244
1,348

CMP
Baseline
Capacity
802
1,325
2,127
729
308
764
1,801
356
847
26
914
2,143
452
220
1,142
256
2,070
8,141

Bedspace
Shortfall to
CMP
Baseline
(935)
(739)
(1,674)
(557)
(333)
(549)
(1,440)
(73)
(319)
(1)
131
(262)
130
2
(513)
(40)
(421)
(3,798)

Potential
Capacity
915
1,756
2,671
1,032
330
1,090
2,452
496
899
26
1,442
2,863
508
316
1,142
256
2,222
10,208

Bedspace
Shortfall to
Potential
Capacity
(822)
(308)
(1,130)
(254)
(311)
(223)
(789)
67
(267)
(1)
659
458
186
98
(513)
(40)
(269)
(1,731)

Several observations on the Sheriff departments‟ male general custody bedspace shortfalls for 2020 can be
summarized as follows:


Sheriff departments collectively will have a projected shortfall of 3,798 male general custody bedspaces
based on CMP Baseline Capacities that can be reduced to 1,731 with Potential Capacity improvements.



Based on the CMP Baseline Capacity, the largest shortfall is in the Northeast Region (1,674), followed by
the Central Region (1,440), the West Region (421 beds) and the Southeast Region (262 beds).



Although all regions will experience some bedspace CMP Baseline Capacity shortfalls, 2 Sheriff
departments in the Northeast Region outpace others with the largest shortfalls: Essex‟s 935 bedspace
shortfall and Suffolk‟s 739 bedspace shortfall.



There are several Sheriffs that will have CMP Baseline Capacity shortfalls around 500 bedspaces each: the
next 2 largest shortfalls occur in the Central Region, in Middlesex (557 bed shortfall) and Worcester (549
shortfall). Hampden in the West Region has the next largest shortfall of 513 bedspaces.
- 146 -

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5



Sheriffs with shortfalls in the 300 bedspace range include Bristol in the Southeast Region (319) and Norfolk
(333) in the Central Region. Smaller shortfalls will be in Barnstable (73), Hampshire (40) and Dukes (1).



Three Sheriffs are expected to have surpluses; Plymouth (+131), Berkshire (+130), and Franklin (+2).



All but 3 Sheriff departments (Dukes, Hampden and Hampshire) have Potential Capacity increases
identified, totaling an additional 2,067 bedspaces.



There are 5 Sheriff departments with significant identified potential capacity improvements: Plymouth
(+528), Suffolk (+431), Worcester (+326), Middlesex (+303) and Franklin (+96). In Plymouth and Franklin,
where there are anticipated surpluses without potential capacity improvements, these improvements should
be implemented only if those bedspaces can be used to offset the shortfalls in neighboring counties or can
be repurposed for pre-release bedspaces. Given that these improvements would be expected to be
significantly less costly than building new bedspaces, every effort to gain and use these bedspaces is
recommended.

As shown in Tables 5.2-5 and 5.2-6, projected male general custody bedspace need for DOC and Sheriffs combined
will range between 19,895 and 21,355, depending on the DOC classification system used to determine pre-release
eligibility. This need can be broken down to 11,939 for Sheriffs collectively (including DOC step-down and 52A‟s) and
9,416 for the DOC under the current system or 7,957 bedspaces under the proposed system.
Projected shortfalls discussed in this section are the result of the projected growth of the Corrections population as
well as the reduction in bedspaces resulting from the application of the new evidence-based CMP Baseline Capacity
criteria on all existing facilities. As previously outlined, the CMP Baseline Capacity consistently measures capacity
across the system to provide a baseline for determining the projection of new bedspaces to be added and the
upgrading of existing facilities to similar standards. While the removal of current bedspaces to align with a new
capacity definition may not be possible in the short term, the goal of the CMP is to gradually upgrade conditions and
reduce general custody overcrowding consistently across the system as new beds are brought on line.
Based on CMP Baseline Capacity, the combined DOC and Sheriff General Custody bedspace capacity is reduced by
9,044, from 22,979 male general custody bedspaces to 13,935 (Table 5.2-9). The reduction to DOC‟s capacity
amounts to 3,898 beds or approximately 40% of its current inventory while the Sheriff‟s collective reduction totals
5,146 or 39% of their collective current inventory.
Potential capacity improvements can possibly add 4,497 general custody male bedspaces to the system‟s CMP
Baseline Capacity, 2,430 in DOC facilities (Table 5.2-8: 8,224 – 5,794) and 2,067 in Sheriffs facilities (Table 5.2-9:
10.208 – 8,141), resulting in a DOC capacity that is 85% of the current beds and 77% of the Sheriffs‟ collective
current beds. As previously discussed, the special needs populations have been disaggregated from this general
custody bedspace needs analysis. As facilities for these special population bedspaces are added to the system,
inmates currently housed in general custody bedspaces will be relocated to relieve overcrowding, improve
programming, and gain efficiencies.
A basic premise of the CMP is the removal of federal inmates currently housed in Sheriff facilities from the system.
These populations have not been included in the 2020 bedspace projections. Although the gradual removal of these
federal inmates may result in potential funding gaps for selected sheriffs in the short term, their removal will be critical
to the Commonwealth‟s ability to address overcrowding while minimizing the capital investment required to build yet
more bedspaces.
- 147 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Components of the Recommended Plan
Total general custody bedspaces for 2020 including the DOC and Sheriffs are summarized in Tables 5.2-17 and 5.218. These tables combine general custody bedspaces by region which assumes that in the Southeast and West
Regions, surplus beds in one county would be used to offset a shortfall in another county in the same region.
Although not be feasible in all locations, the estimate serves as a starting point in determining where new bedspaces
are needed. In fact, with surpluses in the Southeast Region, the repurposing of approximately 458 general custody
beds for pre-release is recommended and bedspaces have been deducted accordingly in the tables below.
The major differences between these tables is the number of DOC‟s medium and minimum bedspaces as a result of
classification, necessitating the repurposing of approximately 957 to 1,295 maximum beds for medium custody and
552 medium for minimum. Total new bedspaces to meet 2020 male general custody bedspace needs will range
between 3,366 and 2,174 should the proposed classification system shift more inmates to pre-release beds.
Table 5.2-17 Male General Custody Bedspaces – Current Classification
General Custody Types

DOC
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
DOC TOTALS
Sheriffs
Northeast Region
Central Region
Southeast Region*
West Region
Sheriff TOTALS
TOTAL

Total
Bedspaces
Needed for
2020

Existing
Potential
Capacity
Bedspaces

Repurposed
Existing
Potential
Capacity
Bedspaces

1,912
6,299
1,205

2,869
4,319
1,036

(957)
957

9,416

8,224

3,801
3,241
2,405
2,491
11,939
21,355

2,671
2,452
2,405
2,222
9,750
17,974

New
Bedspaces

Totals

1,023
169

1,912
6,299
1,205

0

1,192

9,416

14
14
14

1,130
789
0
255
2,174
3,366

3,801
3,241
2,405
2,491
11,939
21,355

Excludes special population beds at MASAC, MTC, Bridgewater, Shattuck; Repurposed beds are exist. women beds in Franklin &
Hampshire, Maximum to Medium; Exist. Maximum beds may be less due to MCI Cedar Junction conversion; * 458 general custody
beds to be repurposed for Pre-release

Table 5.2-18 Male General Custody Bedspaces – Proposed Classification
General Custody Types

DOC
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
DOC TOTALS
Sheriffs
Northeast Region
Central Region
Southeast Region*
West Region
Sheriff TOTALS
TOTAL

Total
Bedspaces
Needed for
2020

Existing
Potential
Capacity
Bedspaces

Repurposed
Existing
Potential
Capacity
Bedspaces

New
Bedspaces

Totals

1,574
5,062
1,321

2,869
4,319
1,036

(1,295)
1,295
552

-552
-267

1,574
5,062
1,321

7,957

8,224

552

(267)

7,957

3,801
3,241
2,405
2,491
11,939
19,895

2,671
2,452
2,405
2,222
9,750
17,974

14
14
566

1,130
789
0
255
2,174
2,174

3,801
3,241
2,405
2,491
11,939
19,895

Excludes special population beds at MASAC, MTC, Bridgewater, Shattuck;Repurposed beds are exist. women beds in Franklin &
Hampshire, 1,295 Maximum to Medium, 348 Medium to Minimum; Exist. Maximum beds may be less due to MCI Cedar Junction
conversion; * 458 SE general custody beds to be repurposed for Pre-release

- 148 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

With the eventual decommissioning of the Middlesex Jail, an additional 161 new general custody bedspaces would
be required, raising the required new bedspace count for 2020 to 3,527 (from 3,366) and 2,335 (from 2,174).
As per Table 5.2-18, under the proposed classification system DOC will have an anticipated surplus of 267 minimum
custody bedspaces as a result of repurposing 552 medium custody bedspaces to minimum. Repurposing the surplus
minimum beds to pre-release is not needed as the proposed classification system would step-down pre-release
inmates to Sheriffs. These surplus beds could allow for the demolition of wood modular units. With a more
aggressive DOC step-down program, the implementation of potential capacity improvements, and the addition of
special population bedspaces, new DOC male general custody bedspaces (maximum, medium, and minimum
custody levels) would not be required. Instead, improvements to the existing DOC facilities should be the focus.
Should civil commitments not be reassigned to other agencies, approximately 654 additional bedspaces could be
needed; 247 bedspaces for sexually dangerous persons, and 166 bedspaces for alcohol and substance abuse, and
242 bedspaces for mentally ill civil commitments. Bedspaces in Bridgewater State Hospital (BSH) (potential capacity
= 258) have not been included in the Potential Capacity calculation as BSH will need to be maintained until more
appropriate mental health sub-acute care facilities are added to the system. As BSH is not well suited for its current
use, the 258 potential capacity bedspaces could be repurposed to accommodate sex offenders or as general custody
bedspaces.
Impact of Replacing Modular Wood Housing
As previously discussed, the analysis on bedspace shortfalls did not include the removal of existing structures from
the inventory. Given the magnitude of need and the resulting shortfalls, the system cannot afford to decommission
structures, with the exception of the Middlesex Jail. However, some of the most vulnerable structures in the system
are the modular wood structures. These structures were intended to be temporary facilities but have remained in use
well beyond their expected life span. Since most the modular wood housing units are DOC facilities, the impact on
the DOC‟s general custody bedspace capacity has been outlined in Table 5.2-19. (A modular wood unit exists at MCI
Framingham for women bedspaces but is not included below.)
Table 5.2-19 DOC Male General Custody Bedspaces in Existing Wood Modular Structures
Facility

Region

Medium Custody
Bay State Correctional Center
Central
MCI-Concord
Central
MCI-Norfolk
Central
North Central Correctional Institute- Medium
Central
Total - Medium Custody Wood Modulars
Minimum Custody
Old Colony Correctional Center Minimum
Southeast
MCI-Shirley Minimum
Central
Total - Minimum Custody Wood Modulars

Date Built

1990
1996
1980
1980

Condition

Good
Poor
Fair
Good

late 1980's Good/Fair
1986 Fair

Current
Beds

CMP
Baseline
Capacity

Potential
Capacity

152
140
104
80
476

64
96
108
56
324

64
96
108
56
324

55
50
105

60
64
124

60
128
188

Table 5.2-19 illustrates that the eventual replacement of these modular structures would require the addition of
approximately 512 more beds (potential capacity) not included in the previous analysis. Although the majority of
these are medium custody bedspaces, some of the older units in the worst condition are minimum custody.
Eventually, the replacement of all these structures will be required. Should the proposed classification system be
implemented, the anticipated surplus of 267 minimum custody beds could be used to replace some of these beds.
- 149 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

A Regional Plan / Phasing of the Recommended Plan
From a financial perspective, the Commonwealth must explore meeting future bedspace needs by constructing new
bedspaces on a multi-jurisdictional basis. No legal barriers exist that prevent several jurisdictions from sharing a
common facility as this practice occurs at the present time. In addition, there are no statutory barriers to DOC and
county sentenced inmates sharing facilities. As the Commonwealth responds to the projected shortfall, the CMP
assumes that this shared approach is not only viable, but essential to meet the bedspace needs over time.
While the proposed grouping of existing facilities into regions is effective to locate future bedspaces required for
Sheriff facilities, this is not necessarily true for the DOC since the bedspace needs are based on custody level and
not necessarily tied to location. Many factors must be addressed in the selection of sites for future facilities, but the
proposed plan is based on maintaining a balance of facilities in locations close to the major population centers that
contribute to the inmate populations.
Critical conclusions that drive the CMP for male general custody bedspaces are outlined as follows.
DOC:


Maximum Custody
Bedspace Need in 2020 by classification: (Current = 1,912; Proposed = 1,574; Alternative = 1,473)
Regardless of the classification system applied, this bedspace need can be addressed in existing facilities.
In fact, bedspace surpluses are anticipated ranging from 1,396 to 957 bedspaces, depending on the degree
of re-classification implemented. Since this analysis was completed, MCI Cedar Junction was repurposed
as a Reception Center and the number of bedspaces allotted for maximum custody inmates is not clear.
However, MCI Cedar Junction‟s Potential Capacity of 581 may not be needed. Any surplus of maximum
custody beds beyond the 2020 need are recommended to be repurposed as medium custody bedspaces.
Therefore, the CMP does not recommend the addition of any maximum custody beds. However, program
and support spaces as well as ADA compliance should be reviewed at Souza Baronowski to confirm that
an increase in the number of inmates long term is possible.



Medium Custody
Bedspace Need in 2020 by classification: (Current = 6,299; Proposed = 5,062; Alternative = 4,051)
The impact of the classification system is dramatic as the shift in the percentage of medium custody
bedspaces goes from the current system‟s 65.9%, to the proposed system‟s 54%, and finally to the
alternative system‟s 44%.
Medium custody bedspace shortfalls in both the current and proposed classification scenarios are
anticipated, ranging from 1,980 to 743 respectively even after potential capacity improvements and the
inclusion of bedspaces used for civil commitments at MTC. With the repurposing of surplus maximum
custody beds, these shortfalls can be reduced to 1,023 (1,980 less 957) in the current system and result in
a 552 bedspace surplus (1,295 less 743) in the proposed system. Although a dramatic transition from the
current system, the alternate classification system could result in a medium custody bedspace surplus even
without repurposing maximum custody bedspaces, further illustrating the impact of the classification system
on bedspace need.
Additionally, the impact of the eventual decommissioning modular wood housing units will have the greatest
impact on the medium custody bedspaces (-324 bedspaces).

- 150 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Determining the rate at which this shift in bedspace will occur is difficult because classification reform is an
ongoing process that requires time and reforms at multiple levels.
Because the re-classification could result in a bedspace surplus, the CMP recommends the implementation
of potential capacity improvements in existing facilities as a first step. New medium custody male
bedspaces should be added in a multi-jurisdictional facility that would allow flexibility of use by multiple
jurisdictions, including Sheriffs.


Minimum Custody
Bedspace Need in 2020 by classification: (Current = 1,205; Proposed = 1,321; Alternative = 2,437)
Similar to medium custody, the impact of the classification system is dramatic as the shift in the percentage
of minimum custody bedspaces goes from the current system‟s 12%, to the proposed system‟s 13.5%, and
finally to the alternative system‟s 24.5%.
Minimum custody bedspace shortfalls in 2020 are anticipated to be in the range of 169 (current) to 285
(proposed) to 1,401 (alternative) after the implementation of potential capacity improvements and including
MASAC‟s 150 potential capacity bedspaces. However, there are two scenarios that can mitigate these
minimum custody bedspaces shortfalls without the addition of new bedspaces.
o

As shown in Table 5.2-18, under the proposed classification system the repurposing 552 medium
custody bedspaces to minimum custody bedspaces would result in an anticipated surplus of 267 DOC
minimum custody bedspaces instead of a shortfall.

o

With a less risk-averse classification system and a more aggressive DOC step-down program, the
eventual repurposing of DOC‟s Minimum/pre-release bedspaces into Minimum bedspaces could
address the anticipated shortfalls of the current and proposed scenarios.
As discussed in the Pre-release section of this Chapter (Tables 5.1-32 and 5.1-33), with the
implementation of a system-wide DOC step-down program, there will be an anticipated surplus of
approximately 479 - 584 DOC‟s Minimum / Pre-release bedspaces that can be used to house DOC
pre-release inmates that would otherwise be transferred to Sheriff facilities. In fact, in the current
classification system, the Central Region would have a surplus of 45 pre-release bedspaces. Because
the shift to classifying more DOC inmates for pre-release must occur to completely utilize these DOC
bedspaces, the DOC could use these bedspaces for minimum custody in the short term.
With the implementation of classification reform, additional pre-release facilities run by Sheriffs in
communities should be built or leased to assist in moving inmates into lower custody levels, providing
better connections to community services.

The CMP recommends potential capacity improvements for DOC’s Minimum Custody bedspaces.
Sheriffs:
 When comparing the total general custody bedspace needs for 2020 (11,939) to the current beds, there will
be a cumulative surplus of 1,348 beds. By applying the CMP Baseline Capacity criteria, there will be a
shortfall of 3,798 that can be reduced to 1,731 with targeted capacity improvements. This cumulative
shortfall will increase to 2,189 with the potential repurposing of 458 excess general custody bedspaces in
the Southeast Region to pre-release beds.

- 151 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5



With potential capacity improvements, the greatest shortfall will be in the Northeast Region (1,130) followed
by the Central Region (789) and the West Region (269). However, with the decommissioning of the
Middlesex Jail, the Central region‟s shortfall increases to 950. The Southeast Region‟s approximately 458
bedspace surplus is recommended to be repurposed as pre-release beds for that region (Currently there are
no pre-release beds reported in the Southeast Region).



The 2,189 shortfall (1,731 + 458) in general custody bedspaces across all regions in addition to the 161
bedspaces at Middlesex Jail to be taken off line results in a 2,350 bedspace shortfall, assuming no other
Sheriff facilities are decommissioned.



As previously outlined in Tables 5.2-17 and 5.2-18, the total new male general custody bedspaces required
to meet the needs in 2020 range from 2,174 to 3,366, increasing to 2,335 and 3,527 with the
decommissioning of the Middlesex Jail. In order to begin to address these shortfalls, a regional approach
which includes multi-jurisdictional facilities is recommended.

The CMP recommends meeting the needs of pretrial inmates through existing facilities and sentenced inmates
through a combination of existing renovated facilities and new regional multi-jurisdictional facilities. With a total
bedspace shortfall of close to 2,400 bedspaces anticipated in 2020, the CMP recommends the addition of new beds
in a multi-jurisdictional facility in the first phase to address multiple jurisdictions bedspace needs.
Table 5.2-20 summaries the male general custody bedspace shortfalls by region, including Sheriffs and DOC.
Table 5.2-20 Male General Custody Bedspaces by Region

Jurisdiction

Potential
Capacity

2020 General Custody Bedspaces
Current Classification

2020 General Custody Bedspaces
Proposed Classification

Need

Need

Repurposed

Shortfall

2,671
915
1,756

3,801

Central Region**
Middlesex
Norfolk
Worcester
DOC
Southeast Region
Barnstable
Bristol

9,566
1,032
330
1,090
7,114
3,515
496
899
26
984
1,110
2,222
508
316
1,142
256
17,974

11,339

(1,773)

10,084

3,241

(789)

3,241

(984)
(208)

6,843
3,519

552
(0)

2,405

(0)

1,114
2,491

14

2,491

14

19,895

566

Dukes
Plymouth*
DOC
West Region
Berkshire County
Franklin County
Hampden County
Hampshire County
TOTAL

(1,130)

Repurposed

Northeast Region
Essex
Suffolk

3,801

8,098
3,724

(0)

2,405

(0)

1,318
2,491

14

2,491

14

21,355

14

(208)
(255)

(3,366)

Shortfall

3,801

(1,130)

3,801

(1,130)
552

(785)
(1,056)
271
(4)

(4)
(255)

(2,174)

Notes: Existing Beds are Potential Capacity; DOC needs split proportionately in Central & SE Regions where existing facilities are located; **267 minimum custody
bed surplus in Proposed Class. not applied against new bedspaces; Middlesex Jail Potential Capacity Included @ 161;Repurposed women beds added in
Franklin(6) & Hampshire(8) = 14 beds; Excludes pre-release beds and special population beds at MASAC, MTC, Bridgewater, Shattuck;* 458 SE general custody
beds repurposed for Pre-release

- 152 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

The dramatic impact of the shift from the current to proposed classification system is of particular note in the Central
Region as illustrated in Table 5.2-20. The more dramatic impact in the Central Region is in part due to the location of
many DOC male general custody facilities in this region. With the shift to a less risk-averse proposed classification
system, DOC step-down inmates would be reassigned to their originating communities in other regions, decreasing
the bedspace need in DOC‟s facilities in this region. Based on the Current Classification System, the Central Region
has the largest 2020 bedspace shortfall of 1,773. With the decommissioning of the Middlesex Jail, this shortfall will
increase to 1,934. In the proposed classification system, the Central Region‟s shortfall is reduced due to a greater
shift to pre-release bedspaces and the repurposing of 552 medium custody bedspaces for minimum custody. In fact,
this repurposing results in a surplus of 267 DOC minimum custody bedspaces (Table 5.2-18). Using these surplus
bedspaces for the Central Region pre-release or to enable the decommissioning of wood modular units should be
considered.
In the proposed classification system, the Northeast Region has the largest shortfall (1,130). With the
decommissioning of the Middlesex Jail, the Central Region‟s shortfall grows from 785 to 946. Shortfalls in the
Southeast Region range from 208 (current) to 4 (proposed) and the West Region (255).
Although the feasibility of achieving the potential capacities must be confirmed, shortfalls based on Potential Capacity
represent the maximum capacity achievable within the current facilities after targeted improvements. Because these
improvements require further investigation and the transition to a less risk-averse proposed classification system will
take time, the CMP recommends the construction of 500 new general custody bedspaces in the Central Region to
address the Southern Middlesex Jail need and to meet multiple jurisdictions’ male general custody bedspace needs
(most notably Norfolk and Worcester Counties).
These 500 new beds are recommended to be built in a new multi-jurisdictional facility as part of Phase 1. Issues of
governance, classification, transportation, and operational costs must be addressed in this first project prior to
implementing additional multi-jurisdictional facilities.

- 153 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Part 3: Summary of New Bedspaces by Region
With funding limitations, the Commonwealth cannot afford the status quo and simply build to meet the anticipated
need for new bedspaces. In order to meet the challenges in 2020 and beyond, a more integrated, cost-efficient and
effective Corrections System that requires collaboration of stakeholders, the DOC and all Sheriff departments, is
absolutely essential. Therefore, the CMP recommends a more regional approach to addressing these needs. The
total shortfall ranging from 5,500 to 6,000 bedspaces should be addressed on a regional basis rather than
responding to each county‟s individual needs, where possible. Benefits of this shared approach include:






Adds flexibility to the system as incarcerated populations expand or contract
Provides critical size of populations for cost-effective programs and services
Maintains proximity to communities
Alleviates multiple jurisdictions‟ overcrowding in consolidated projects
By consolidating new shared bedspaces, the system can begin to address improving conditions in existing
facilities and expanding access to programs.

As this approach is a departure from current practices, many factors must be addressed to ensure the success of this
shared approach. The CMP‟s focus is on capital projects. However, the success of these projects is completely
dependent on creating a more integrated system. Therefore, the CMP recommends that working committees
including representatives from EOPSS, DOC, Sheriff departments and ANF be convened to collaborate on the
following issues to this end:








Governance of a multi-jurisdictional facility
Jurisdictional agreements between Sheriffs and DOC
Transportation / Technology upgrades
Inmate classification to implement DOC step-down and multi-jurisdictional facilities
Pre-release / re-entry programs and strategy
Medical and Mental Health Care issues
Operational Costs

Tables 5.3-1 and 5.3-2 summarize the new bedspace needs by region for DOC and Sheriffs combined for 2020 using
the current and proposed classification systems. These bed counts assume that all CMP Baseline Capacity
bedspaces remain as currently purposed. However, in the case of women beds, efficiencies and cost-effective
programming may be better realized by housing larger number of women in fewer regional centers. This could result
in building more new beds in one location and repurposing existing beds in another location for men.
Table 5.3-1 New DOC & Sheriff Bedspaces by Region – Current Classification
Region

Northeast Region
Central Region
Southeast Region
West Region
Totals

CMP
Baseline
Capacity
2,645
7,886
3,640
2,578
16,749

Potential
Capacity
3,521
10,879
4,688
2,749
21,837

New Male
General
Custody
1,130
1,773
208
255
3,366

New Women Beds
Pre-release
40
62
12
114

General
227

New
Medical
/Mental
Health
750
520

94
321

1,270

New Male
Pre-release
Beds

Total New
Beds

Total Beds
(Potential
Capacity)

147
*
9
290
447

1,544
2,584
750
639
5,517

5,065
13,463
5,438
3,388
27,354

Note: * denotes Male Pre-release bedspace surplus of 45 beds in Central Region

- 154 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5
Table 5.3-2 New DOC & Sheriff Bedspaces by Region – Proposed Classification
Region

Northeast Region
Central Region
Southeast Region
West Region
Totals

CMP
Baseline
Capacity
2,645
7,886
3,640
2,578
16,749

Potential
Capacity
3,521
10,879
4,688
2,749
21,837

New Male
General
Custody
1,130
785
4
255
2,174

New Women Beds
Pre-release
50
85
16
151

General
226

New
Medical
/Mental
Health
750
520

93
319

1,270

New Male
Pre-release
Beds

Total New
Beds

Total Beds
(Potential
Capacity)

641
446
246
529
1,861

2,047
2,065
785
877
5,775

5,568
12,944
5,473
3,626
27,612

In Tables 5.3-1 and 5.3-2, there are additional bedspaces beyond the projected bedspace need. This is expected and
is in large part a result of not being able to fully utilize some existing bedspaces due to their locations or security
levels, even with a regional approach. However, excess bedspaces can present an opportunity to consider strategic
decommissioning of selected facilities. These surplus bedspaces can be summarized as follows:


Current Classification System: approximately 366 bedspaces
o Special Population Bedspaces: approximately 108 bedspaces
 Women: 63 bedspaces (17 secure and 46 pre-release)
- Barnstable (4 secure, 2 pre-release)
- Hampden (17 pre-release)
- Berkshire (10 secure, 5 pre-release)
- MCI Framingham /SMCC (3 secure)
- Bristol (22 Pre-release)
 Male Pre-release: (45 bedspaces)
- Central Region
o Other Bedspaces:
 Bridgewater State Hospital (258 potential capacity bedspaces)



Proposed Classification System: approximately 624 bedspaces
o Special Population Bedspaces: approximately 99 bedspaces
 Women: 99 bedspaces (54 secure and 43 pre-release)
- Barnstable (4 secure, 1 pre-release)
- Hampden (17 pre-release)
- Berkshire (10 secure, 4 pre-release)
- MCI Framingham /SMCC (42 secure)
- Bristol (21 Pre-release)
o General Custody Bedspaces: approximately 267 bedspaces
 Minimum Custody DOC bedspaces (267 secure)
o Other Bedspaces:
 Bridgewater State Hospital (258 potential capacity bedspaces)

Given that the majority of inmates and detainees in the correctional system fall within the CMP‟s general custody
definition, the largest shortfall is male general custody bedspaces. Although special populations represent a smaller
segment of the total population, the lack of these types of bedspaces in the existing system impacts the operations
and efficiencies of all facilities.
As the addition of 5,500 new bedspace need cannot be achieved in the first phase of development, the CMP sought
to identify the needs that could provide the greatest potential impact to the system as a whole. For the first phase of
- 155 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

development, 1,925 new bedspaces are recommended. As previously discussed, by removing the special needs
populations from general custody facilities, facility operations can be more efficient, additional bedspaces can be made
available for the general custody populations within existing facilities, and special need populations can be addressed
more cost-effectively and more efficiently in specialized and consolidated facilities. A new multi-jurisdictional general
custody facility has also been identified for development in Phase 1. As additional pre-release and sub-acute medical
and mental health care beds are added to the system, general custody bedspaces will become available to begin to
alleviate overcrowding.
Table 5.3-3 below summarizes the recommended Phase 1 new bedspaces.
Table 5.3-3
Recommended Phase 1 New Bedspaces
CMP Phase 1 - Recommended New Beds
Region
Northeast Region
Eastern MA Women's Correctional*
Women Pre-release Beds
Male Pre-release
Central Region
MCI Framingham*
New Medical / Mental Health Facility
Male Pre-release - location TBD
Women Pre-release Beds
Multi-jurisdictional General Custody-TBD
Southeast Region
Male Pre-release -locations TBD
West Region
Western MA Women's Correctional
Male Pre-release -Hampshire
Totals

Women Beds
Pre-release

General
225
225

Medical /
MH

0
Study

500

Male Beds
Pre-release
200

200
100

General

500

500
100
500
0

0

100
100

0

200
200
100

325

500

100
600

500

Total
425
225
0
200
1,100
0
500
100
0
500
200
200
200
100
100
1,925

Notes: Beds counts are preliminary and must be assessed in Building Studies; All new women bedspaces may not be feasible at Suffolk HOC site. Additonal
study of MCI Framingham recommended.

In this strategic plan, the focus has been on the definition of the types of bedspaces that meet the bedspace needs
and move the Corrections System towards more integration and efficiency. To this end, with the exception of prerelease beds which are best sited and managed by Sheriffs in their communities, all new bedspaces are considered
shared regional beds and /or are to be developed in multi-jurisdictional facilities.
These first phase projects can be considered pilot projects that begin to move the Commonwealth into 2020,
addressing the initial overarching goals of the CMP:
1)
2)
3)
4)

Alleviate crowding
Reduce recidivism
Maximize existing resources
Create a more integrated, efficient and cost-effective system

Potential capacity improvements as well as potential expansion of support spaces are also recommended as part of
Phase 1 to begin to improve conditions more unilaterally. Repairs and upgrades to existing facilities are also part of
- 156 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Phase 1 and will be prioritized as discussed in Chapter 2. Bedspace need on a regional basis is also recommended for
the implementation of potential capacity improvements.
While regions have been suggested, these have been based more on “organizing the need” than an in depth
assessment of existing political and functional relationships between the various jurisdictions. Figure 5.3-1 indicates
the general regional locations of all new facilities that are a part of the CMP Phase 1. The feasibility of each identified
project must be assessed and final sites / locations of new facilities are still to be determined. The actual number of
beds built at any given location is dependent on site specific conditions and operational efficiencies that must be
considered in building studies prior to design and construction.
Figure 5.3-1
Phase 1 Recommended New Facility General Locations by Geographic Regions

- 157 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Part 4: Pre-arraignment Incarceration
Pre-Arraignment in the Commonwealth is different from that of many states. In a majority of counties throughout the
USA, an individual arrested is often taken directly to the county pretrial facility for booking and the pre-arraignment
and arraignment processes. In some instances, an arrestee may be taken to a police lockup for identification, but
soon transferred to the local county facility for booking and the beginning of the arraignment process. In the
Commonwealth, local municipal and State Police lockups typically provide holding until the pre-arraignment process
is completed. Most arrestees have court appearances within hours of their arrest. However, on nights, weekends and
holidays when the courts are not available for arraignment, lockups must hold arrestees for as much as several
days and nights. Those arrestees that do not make bail are transferred from a municipal or State Police lock-up to the
pretrial county jail in a Sheriff facility.
Many of the 300 local lockups are understaffed and inadequate for holding arrestees beyond a very short timeframe.
Furthermore, some towns may not be utilizing their lockups. Most do not have the cells for medical isolation,
respiratory isolation, alcohol and/or drug withdrawal, suicide watch or self-protection (restraint). Without facilities for
meals preparation, laundry, visiting, day rooms, showers, or medical clinics, these facilities are not equipped to hold
arrestees for any significant period of time. Although the financial responsibility for the pre-arraignment process
currently rests with the municipalities and the State Police, Sheriff facilities are better equipped to handle the myriad
of issues surrounding arrestees who must be held for overnight or on weekends and holidays. With the focus of law
enforcement on patrolling and presence in the community, the current practice may not be the most effective and
cost- efficient method for the Commonwealth.
Planning Basis
With a focus on a greater use of intervention programs that divert as many as possible from pretrial incarceration
through the establishment and funding of both local pretrial intervention and probation and parole supervisory programs,
the CMP recommends that over time pre-arraignment responsibilities for arrestees required to be held overnight, on
weekends and holidays be transferred to Sheriff departments‟ pretrial facilities where warranted by regional demand and
where facilities can support this responsibility. While recognizing that operational funding, improved collaboration with
the Courts and law enforcement, and the increased use of technology is needed to realize this goal, the greater use of
the electronic transfer of information, including video arraignments, electronic finger-printing, standardized electronic
booking, and electronic tracking of offenders could reduce the need for lockup capacity in many instances, reducing the
need for substantial expansion of facilities and transportation vehicles. The statutory requirement that all municipalities
of 5,000 or greater maintain lock-ups could be reassessed where regional lockup capacity in Sheriff facilities is possible.
While the only one “official” regional lockup in the Massachusetts Correction System is in Hampshire County (which
is only open from 5PM to 7AM), several jails in Sheriff facilities are serving as de-facto regional lockups. In fact,
towns with populations under 5,000 currently use Sheriff facilities for detention. The Bristol County Sheriff department
is utilizing the Ash Street Jail as a regional lockup, serving 18 of the 20 municipalities within the county. In addition to
these two regional lockups, some Sheriffs house pre-arraignment detainees overnight, on weekends and holidays
with varying levels of agreements:


Barnstable – all 15 municipalities and 3 State Police Barracks use the jail as a lockup on an informal basis;
Yarmouth is negotiating an agreement for the Sheriff to provide transportation to court for a per diem fee.

- 158 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5






Berkshire – 24 of the 32 towns use the jail as a lockup based on informal agreements. (Only 7 of 12 local
lockups are used for overnight stays.)
Dukes – all 7 towns on the Vineyard use the jail as lockup. No local lockups exist.
Essex – all 34 municipalities use the jail in varying degrees. Danvers has a mutual aid agreement with the
Sheriff department.
Franklin – all 26 municipalities use the jail in varying degrees.

Upon review of the jails with reported use as lockups, the only region that does not report use of Sheriff facilities for
lockups is the Central Region. As discussed later, this region has the largest number of local lockups. In the
Northeast Region, the Essex Sheriff„s Jail is used. Suffolk County reports the need for a regional lockup but it has not
been studied in detail. In the Southeast Region, 3 of the 5 Sheriffs report use of their jails while 3 of 4 Sheriffs in the
West Region report use of their jails for lockups. Expanding the use of jails in Sheriff facilities for lockups to include
overnight stays as well as weekend and holidays should be considered on a regional basis. However, adding
separate regional lockup facilities to be used only on nights and weekends at every county jail is not a cost-effective
option.
Data regarding the use of the existing lockups was very difficult to obtain. Scant data was available to develop a reliable
basis for defining the current use of municipal and State Police Lock-Ups. Only 22% of the local lockups (66 of the 300)
participated in the survey. Over half of those were State police lockups. Table 5.4-1 summarizes the data that was
available and uses basic information from the survey of lock-ups to estimate the potential number of daily bookings that
occur across the municipalities and proposed regions in the Commonwealth. This estimate (considered low) does not
include daily bookings at the county jails.
Table 5.4-1
Estimated Number of Pre-Arraignment Bookings in Municipal and State Police Lock-Ups
2007
Number of
Population Lockups

County/Regions
Region 1- Northeast
Essex County
Suffolk County

733,101
713,049
1,446,150

38
20
58

5.18
2.80
4.01

5.11
8.65
13.79

1,473,416
654,909
781,352
Subtotal Region 2 2,909,677

56
30
47
133

3.80
4.58
6.02
4.57

4.64
8.19
10.51
24.43

222,175
543,024
15,485
10,240
490,258
1,281,182

18
21
1
28
68

8.10
3.87
9.77
5.71
5.31

1.64
5.63
4.44
11.71

12
6
14
9
41
300

9.25
8.38
3.06
5.88
5.05
4.65

0.71
0.69
0.78
1.91
4.09
54.02

Subtotal Region 1
Region 2-Central
Middlesex County
Norfolk County
Worcester County
Region 3-Southeast
Barnstable County
Bristol County
Dukes County
Nantucket County
Plymouth County
Subtotal Region 3
Region 4-West
Berkshire County
Franklin County
Hampden County
Hampshire County
Total Counties

Ratio per
Average
100,000
Daily
Population Bookings

129,798
71,602
457,908
153,147
Subtotal Region 4
812,455
6,449,464

-

Source: PBA/CGL; June 2009

Note: Daily bookings based on information provided in a survey.

- 159 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Not surprising, the highest daily average of bookings in lock-ups occurs in the counties that comprise the Central
Region. This region also has the greatest number of lock-up facilities. Overall, the 300 lock-ups in the
Commonwealth are served by 62 District Courts. While the municipalities have petitioned the Commonwealth for
funding to improve the conditions for holding pre-arraigned arrestees, the data was simply not available during the
CMP process to estimate the totality of need. However, based upon the data available, the potential benefits of more
systematically and formally incorporating the pre-arraignment process into the existing booking and arraignment
process in Sheriff facilities to better accommodate detainees required to be held overnight, weekends, and holidays
should be explored further and considered on a regional basis.
Associated problems of the current practices in the pre-arraignment process in Massachusetts can be summarized
as follows:








New arrestees detained in local and state police facilities are supervised by law enforcement officers instead
of trained correctional officers.
Supervision of arrestees by police reduces time spent on law enforcement duties.
Limited access to judges or special magistrates is the biggest cause for the increased timeframe that
arrestees are detained.
Numerous lockups require bail commissioners / clerk magistrates to cover multiple sites, creating delays
and inefficiencies.
Physical conditions in lockups do not reflect best practices, especially for stays greater than 8 hours.
Standardized policy regarding holding of detainees and transfer to Sheriff facilities is lacking.
Duplication of services such as booking and transports to courts create inefficiencies. Consistent and
electronic booking could provide efficiencies and enable sharing of information between all stakeholders.

Components of the Recommended Plan
Approaches to achieving a more efficient criminal justice system, including the pre-arraignment process will involve
the cooperation of many components of the criminal justice system.
The overarching CMP recommendation is that as efforts are made to achieve a more integrated system, Sheriff
facilities‟ intake and lockup capabilities should be assessed in the context of regional needs.
As the expansion of responsibility for more overnight and weekend pre-arraignment incarceration to the Sheriffs is
implemented, several important improvements should occur, including:
1. Future capital expenditures should include the upgrade of existing Sheriff intake areas to accommodate the
processing of local arrestees held overnight, on weekends and holidays. Procedures should be developed
that ensure that arrestees receive their first court appearance or arraignment within 24 hours through bail
commissioners, judges, or magistrates that would be on-call nights or weekends to officiate arraignment
proceedings at scheduled times.
2. Arrestees would always have timely access to bail in the Commonwealth. The current process of on-call bail
commissioners traveling to the lockups to arrange bail for arrestees could be eliminated through the use of
technology and/or the stationing of fulltime bail commissioners at select county jails.
3. The implementation of a state-wide integrated criminal justice information system (formerly known as ICJIS,
now known as MaSSNet) would become the key component of an improved pre-arraignment system.

- 160 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Consistent, standardized electronic booking by local, State Police and Sheriff departments would need to be
implemented.
4. Video arraignment, and other forms of technology applications, would need to be employed to reduce costs
and security risks by limiting the transport of detainees; limit travel for Bail Commissioners; and provide
simple and easy access to the judicial process for new arrestees.
5. Pretrial intervention programs could be more systematically developed to reduce detainee incarcerations.
By far, most pre-arraignments involve citations rather than incarceration in lock-up facilities. Although a statistically
sound estimate of the number of additional bedspaces that would be required in county jails is unknown, based upon
the data available for Table 5.4-1, the impact appears to be small. The greater impact would likely be on intake areas
and potential staffing needs as well as the proposed operating changes.
According to the CMP analysis, the number of bedspaces required in Sheriff facilities to accommodate the overnight
stay for pre-arraignment inmates is estimated at 5-10 per county, on average. Assessment of the potential impact on
capital costs and operational costs should be assessed as improvements to county jail facilities are contemplated.
This assessment should consider the regional need and willingness of the municipalities to enter into formal
agreements to provide these services.
The Cost of Meeting the Pre-Arraignment Bedspace Needs
With limited exceptions, the CMP is intended to address capital requirements for buildings. Intake areas and
bedspace capacity would need to be assessed and those areas expanded in cases where there is a regional demand
for the expansion of pre-arraignment incarceration in a particular Sheriff facility. Where local lockups continue,
electronic fingerprinting and other shared database applications should be implemented.
Pre-arraignment issues include immediate access to bail commissioners, attorneys, and judicial personnel and
consistent electronic records. Proven efficient and effective applications of remote appearances through the use of
technology is essentially what separates most localities from a much improved pre-arraignment system. The
Commonwealth is one of the few remaining states where this use of technology is not utilized to reduce unnecessary
overnight stays and the cost of transportation.
At this time, no exclusive capital cost for the pre-arraignment process is recommended. However, consideration for
improvements to intake areas should be assessed as part of any additions or improvements to Sheriff facilities where
the expansion of the pre-arraignment responsibilities to the Sheriff is determined to be feasible. The addition of teleconferencing and implementation of centralized information management at all lockups should be integrated into the
emerging MassNet project, addressed in the next section.
Although the development of the CMP strategy has focused on the improvement of conditions of confinement
through the reduction of crowding and the implementation of new facility types that would improve the opportunities
for reduction in re-offending, implementation of support functions (such as technology and transportation) and
coordination between the various entities within the criminal justice system are also critical.

- 161 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Part 5: Technology
Without a more integrated approach to information gathering, storage, retrieval, dissemination, and management,
capital dollars invested to improve existing facilities and create new correctional facilities will only result in additional
“stovepipes” that have limited impact on improving the delivery of correctional services. Therefore, while the
correctional system, represented primarily by the DOC and the Sheriffs in this plan, regularly invests in technology,
this investment is in large part without regard to decisions being considered by other correctional agencies, and
almost never with consideration to the plans of other criminal justice agencies. Any initiative to improve the
management of criminal justice information must involve all stakeholders in the system.
In the context of a CMP, technology is only briefly discussed because a comprehensive criminal justice information
system plan is beyond this scope. Fortunately, however, during the development of the CMP, the Commonwealth
undertook Step 1 of a comprehensive assessment of information needs that, in time, should be integrated with the
capital requests associated with new facilities that is the focus of the CMP.
Planning Basis
During the course of this study, the iCJIS nomenclature was changed to MaSSNet. An outcome of a comprehensive
planning effort in 2006 was a vision for an integrated system that would serve all criminal justice agencies. A portion
of the vision is summarized in the following key points:








The demand from Massachusetts‟ criminal justice and non-criminal justice stakeholders for critical MaSSNet
information to guide decision making has increased dramatically.
To make sound decisions, information is accessed from a variety of sources.
To obtain this information, stakeholders have relied heavily on partnerships that extend across criminal
justice agencies at the local, state, and federal levels.
The MaSSNet concept describes the use of technology to promote seamless interaction and information
sharing among criminal justice organizations and systems.
The primary goal of the MaSSNet is to provide critical, complete, timely, and secure information to criminal
justice personnel and decision makers and must be accessible at any time, from any device, in any location
across the Commonwealth.
The MaSSNet provides judges, police officers, district attorneys, probation officers, correction officials and
others key information at arrest, arraignment, trial, sentencing, incarceration, registration, and supervision.
Sharable information with non-criminal justice agencies with statutory authority to support public health, public
safety and homeland security, human services, and other government and public services would be provided.

While the integrated criminal justice information system is dependent on technology for implementation, the proposed
integrated system is not strictly a technology concept, but is built on the business needs of the various criminal justice
stakeholders and includes the needs of organizations and governing structures to implement, manage, and utilize the
technology. To this end, the integrated system addresses business processes, technology, organizations, and
governance.
As noted in the 2006 study, the statutory basis for the initiation of the iCJIS (MaSSNet) Project originates from M.G.L.
c. 6A, § 18 ¾, “Secretary of public safety; functions”, within Title II “Executive and Administrative Officers of the
Commonwealth” of the general laws. Excerpts from this section included the following:
- 162 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

It shall be the function of the secretary of public safety:
(1) to develop and implement, in conjunction with the Criminal History Systems Board, an improved system for
recording, updating and communicating among criminal justice agencies of the executive office, and the trial court, the
attorney general, the Massachusetts sentencing commission, the county sheriffs, and district attorneys, all criminal
offender record information and information relevant to sentencing, probation, community corrections, correctional
institutions, rehabilitation, and parole decisions in a manner consistent with law and with the rights of all persons who
are subjects of such information;
(2) to develop and implement a criminal justice management information system including the organized collection,
storage, retrieval, analysis, and dissemination of information among criminal justice agencies of the executive office of
public safety, and the trial court, the attorney general, the Massachusetts sentencing commission, the county sheriffs,
and the district attorneys of the seven districts;
(3) to develop and implement a criminal justice research and evaluation program including the organized collection,
storage, retrieval and analysis of information in order to monitor and provide oversight of criminal justice agencies of
the executive office, and trial court, the attorney general, the Massachusetts sentencing commission, the county
sheriffs, the district attorneys, and the public.

Through the comprehensive information system assessment, the Commonwealth established the planning need and
schedule for improvements. Existing criminal justice system technologies were thoroughly inventoried with a finding
of a number of deficiencies that are summarized as follows:











Network bandwidth is an issue that is visible with the deployment of newer applications such as the SWISS,
Parole‟s State Parole Integrated Record and Information Tracking (SPIRIT) system, the Sheriffs Information
and Reporting System (SIRS), CJIS-Web Applications, CJIS XML, and the Massachusetts Instant Record
Check System (MIRCS);
The Criminal History Systems Board (CHSB) has been turned into a managed service provider without any
planning or investment in improving the network infrastructure;
Existing vendor technology more often drives the business solutions as opposed to business issues
dictating technology choices;
Limited disaster recovery for many agencies and/or applications. The Commonwealth is in the process of
planning a disaster recovery data center, but this backup facility will not likely be ready at the time of this
project‟s implementation;
Funding for information technology is unpredictable. This unpredictability leads to a “do something with
funding” attitude, resulting in information silos and a lack of change management planning and crossagency collaboration;
Commonwealth-wide applications have been developed and deployed utilizing newer application platforms
without upgrading the CJIS network, resulting in expensive delays in application deployment and usage;
The newer web-based systems, such as MIRCS and CJISWeb, have increased the transaction load by one
million transactions per month. A direct result of this transaction volume increase is the degradation of
response times during peak hours;
Some current and many future data exchanges require a significantly larger throughput capacity than is
currently available. As such, committed information rates (CIR) are being exceeded, causing delays and
failures for these types of transactions;
The current CJIS Data Center lacks the tools and monitoring equipment to proactively monitor, report, and
manage the WAN from end to end; and

- 163 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5



The business requirements for the CJIS network have changed dramatically. The once “closed, private”
network is now being accessed by a plethora of devices and technologies. The customer base and core
business are rapidly changing, requiring access from public networks. As such, network security, data
encryption, and user authentication are federally mandated and need to be addressed for compliance.

Specific to the CMP, the basic need begins with a more formalized exchange of offender information between the
DOC and the Sheriffs that is broadened to include community-based corrections for both pretrial and reentry
functions. Currently each entity classifies the risk and needs of inmates/clients with no cross-jurisdictional key
markers. A system-wide database that includes all stakeholders in the process is crucial if the CMP‟s regional model
is to be effective.
Other technological opportunities identified during the CMP which involve hardware and software that would augment
the operation of facilities and services are summarized below:








Fingerprint-based records that would be available to correctional, parole, and community corrections
personnel to assure the identification and monitoring of in-and out-of custody offenders;
Telemedicine applications that would expedite diagnosis, reduce expenditures for medical personnel,
and eliminate expensive transportation of inmates to medical facilities;
Use of electronic medical records that would provide access to agencies throughout the process and
potentially result in cost savings associated with the transfer of confidential medical information
between Sheriffs and the DOC for sentenced inmates;
Video arraignment from county jails and local courthouses that would significantly expedite the prearraignment process and reduce the time of incarceration;
Video visitation that ultimately would provide greater opportunities for more frequent contact between
families and offenders while reducing the spatial needs at correctional facilities; and
Inmate kiosks that would provide a single source available to inmates for managing their inmate
account, maintaining progress on their inmate plan, choosing visitation times, and a variety of other
possibilities that would reduce the demand on staff‟s time.
Transportation database and scheduling capability expanded for Sheriffs (discussed in next section)

These specific technologies are available and provide the benefits of efficiency and cost savings while becoming a
part of an integrated management system. Implementation of the regional model will require greater study of how
technology can assure that inmates are assigned to the appropriate facility and their progress monitored during their
progression through the more integrated DOC and county system.
Components of the Integrated Technology Plan
The implementation of MaSSNet, previously called the Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (iCJIS), on a
state-wide basis is a high priority in the CMP. The goal is to promote seamless interaction and information sharing
between criminal justice agencies. Sheriffs should be urged to participate in the MaSSNet technology solutions
including: 1) electronic communication (e.g., video-conferencing) and reporting; 2) electronic recording and archiving;
and 3) electronic monitoring.
Delegation by EOPSS of a committee or group with the responsibility to coordinate technology-based solutions for
Sheriff and DOC information systems will be critical to the implementation of a more efficient correctional system.
Technology upgrades for the integrated technology system should be coordinated by the statewide MaSSNet agency

- 164 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Future technologies can be capitalized on an economy of scale with common purchasing of equipment and services
within the Corrections System.
Again, the plan for greater criminal justice system information integration that has been developed identified a
number of specific outcomes that would be sought with the expenditure of capital funds. These included:









Development of a future-state MaSSNet network vision and architecture that account for anticipated
initiatives for the delivery of information and services;
Development, through translation of business and functional requirements, of a set of network architecture
design principles which define the appropriate security, performance, capacity, scalability and flexibility
attributes of the new MaSSNet Network Architecture;
Development of a MaSSNet network architecture which defines the logical and physical network
management structures, as well as the technical components, that will allow for pro-active monitoring of
systems and networks;
Development of a set of technical and operating standards (consistent with CHSB, FBI, and Commonwealth
laws, policies, and regulations) that will serve as a roadmap to a new MaSSNet Network Architecture along
with a roll-out plan and a maintenance strategy for the standards;
Development of a set of recommendations for implementing an appropriate security architecture, as well as
appropriate operations and support, for the new MassNet Network Architecture that meet state and federal
requirements as provided by the CHSB;
Development of a timeline for implementation of the proposed solution(s);
Definition of the management and operational resources required to administer both the current CJIS
network and the new MaSSNet Network Architecture; and
Development of a strategy, along with estimated costs, for properly maintaining the new MaSSNet Network
Architecture which must include suggested technology refreshment cycles.

The comprehensive technology plan that is underway at the state level will be the foundational platform for the
correctional component. While significant funding has been allocated for the implementation of the MaSSNet
program, the correctional component of the system must be more specific in the development of a technology plan.
Better sharing is a given and will be improved as MaSSNet matures, but the specifics of a technology plan that would
benefit the DOC and Sheriff departments is yet to be developed. The short list identified above includes some of the
specific devices, services, or equipment that should be a part of any new building program, but are only a portion of
the technological applications that would benefit staff and offenders in meeting the goals of a more efficient system.
Coordination with the ongoing technology work under EOPSS is required. During the implementation of the CMP
recommendations, each project should assess what and how to best integrate available technology that should be
included to improve specific facility operations and the accomplishment of the regional-sharing goals of the CMP.
Cost of Meeting the Need
Different from the estimation of the cost to construct new correctional facilities, the ability to estimate the capital funding
requirements for greater use of technology is not feasible at this time. However, based upon the on-going work to
implement MaSSNet and the pending needs associated with the implementation of the CMP, the expenditure for
technology in CMP projects should focus on system integration of projects and services in the three broad categories:
1) electronic communication (e.g., video-conferencing) and reporting;
2) electronic recording and archiving; and
3) electronic monitoring through cooperative agreements between state and local agencies.
- 165 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Targeted pilot projects in video conferencing, along with video visitation and telemedicine, can soothe some of the
historical hesitation to use newer technologies. These pilot projects can serve as a gauge on the level of financial
investment needed in the video conferencing, video visitation, and telemedicine areas. These projects can also
provide a means to measure the effectiveness of these technologies in the Corrections System. Next steps for
technology pilot projects in corrections should include electronic medical records and finger print based electronic
records.
As discussed in the next section, shared transportation database and electronic scheduling should be expanded for
all Sheriffs to enable shared resources as well as the tracking of use and cost.
Capital funding should focus on system integration of projects and services in these broad categories through
cooperative agreements between state and local agencies. Advances in overall criminal justice technology, along
with standardization of data, will benefit all parties involved.
From a governance perspective, consolidating technology funding for the Commonwealth into one agency that has
oversight of the role that each capital request has in the improvement of the criminal justice system will benefit the
goal of coordination and integration. Continuing the current approach of funding individual county funding requests
for technological applications is counter-productive to an integrated regional model.

- 166 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Part 6: Inmate Transportation
The movement of inmates and detainees is a major annual expenditure for the DOC and Sheriffs which normally
includes a variety of destinations between jails, jails and prisons, prison transfers, courts, medical and dental centers,
interstate transfers and other special purpose trips. As each jurisdiction typically provides their own inmate transport,
transportation has not typically been considered from a system-wide perspective. Although the CMP focuses on
capital investment with the goal to create a more integrated and coordinated system, upgrading support services will
be critical. This section discusses opportunities to expand current models of centralization and regionalization in the
system today to create a more integrated and cost-effective network.
Planning Basis
The Inventory and Analysis Report presented a more detailed assessment of the existing inmate transportation
operations. Selected information from the Inventory and Analysis Report regarding inmate transportation has been
summarized below and has served as the basis for the recommended plan.
DOC
Although a portion of DOC inmate transportation is provided with vehicles assigned at individual facilities, the major
volume of daily routine inmate transport and transfers is operated by the Central Transport Unit (CTU) which includes
two regions. With a computerized system, data on DOC‟s transportation use is available.
Individual facilities tend to have a limited number of vehicles available, some of which are intended for occasional
inmate transport and/or emergency uses. Vans kept at prisons are usually for deliveries, staff use or transporting
inmates to a project or job site at or away from the prison. Some inter-facility or hospital transfers are made by facility
based vans and are not part of the DOC‟s CTU operation.
The CTU is headquartered at MCI Norfolk with the Transport Director, an Administrative Assistant, plus one of the
Unit‟s two garages with the Fleet Manager, a secretary and three maintenance staff.
The day-to-day vehicle operation is organized on a regional basis with drivers, security escorts, and vehicles
stationed at MCI Bridgewater for Region I and at MCI Shirley for Region II. Each region has a captain in charge and
there are 10 Fleet Management /maintenance staff split between the Bridgewater and Norfolk garages and the Body
Shop. Drivers, security escorts and vehicles are stationed at the following DOC facilities by region:
Region I Staff and Vehicle Locations
 MCI Bridgewater, Regional Center
– 63 staff
 MCI Norfolk

Region II Staff and Vehicle Locations
 MCI Shirley, Regional Center – 49
staff
 MCI Concord
 MCI Gardner

The CTU has a total of 61 vans and 1 bus used for inmate transport. Information regarding annual inmate trips was
supplied by the DOC Transportation Unit based on a three year data base. Table 5.4-1 presents a comparison of the
total number of annual trips made by DOC‟s CTU and individual facility vehicles and the ADP‟s to generate trips per
inmate for each year. Trips per inmate are calculated by the facility of origin, region, and total DOC use for 3 years.
This information is important to understand the trend in transportation within the DOC and to predict future needs.
- 167 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Table 5.6-1 Average Number of Inmate Trips per Year by DOC Institution

2005 ADP
Facility
Region 1: Northeast
L. Shattuck Hospital Correctional Unit
29
Boston Pre-Release Center
119
Subtotal Region 1
148
Region 2: Central
Bay State Correctional Center
293
MCI Cedar Junction
593
Souza Baranowski Correctional Center
1,007
MCI Concord
1,177
County, Federal, & Interstate
MCI Framingham
661
MCI Norfolk
1,436
MCI Shirley
1,151
North Central Correctional Institute
991
Northeastern Correctional Center
259
South Middlesex Correctional Center
128
Pondville Correctional Center
194
Subtotal Region 2
7,890
Region 3: Southeast
Bridgewater State Hospital
345
Mass Alcohol & Substance Abuse Center
177
Massachusetts Treatment Center
633
MCI Plymouth
150
Old Colony Correctional Center
806
Other
Subtotal Region 3
2,111
Region 4: West (No Existing DOC Facilities)
Total
10,149

2005
Trips

2005 Trips/
Inmate 2006 ADP

2006
Trips

2006 Trips/
nmate 2007 ADP

2007
Trips

2007 Trips/
Inmate Total Trips

Average
Trips/
Inmate

398
122
520

14
1
3.51

30
146
176

250
109
359

8
1
2.04

26
166
192

247
108
355

10
1
1.85

895
339
1,234

10.52
0.81
2.47

584
1,962
2,821
4,951
132
1,256
2,948
2,688
2,214
202
230
393
20,381

2
3
3
4
NA
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2.58

295
622
1,023
1,355

654
1,895
2,351
5,357
123
1,040
2,096
2,408
1,768
206
157
322
18,377

2
3
2
4
NA
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2.23

317
726
1,056
1,396

630
1,677
2,036
6,005
114
775
1,859
2,282
1,946
251
140
239
17,954

2
2
2
4
NA
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2.09

1,868
5,534
7,208
16,313
369
3,071
6,903
7,378
5,928
659
527
954
56,712

2.07
2.89
2.34
4.15
NA
1.50
1.58
2.04
1.98
0.84
1.31
1.64
2.30

1,643
300
2,458
264
1,581
213
6,459

5
2
4
2
2
NA
3.06

368
199
628
148
884

4
1
3
2
2
NA
2.40

362
182
604
180
804

2,227

1,543
288
1,765
273
1,339
126
5,334

2,132

1,565
258
1,876
295
1,166
149
5,309

4
1
3
2
1
NA
2.49

4,751
846
6,099
832
4,086
488
17,102

4.43
1.52
3.27
1.75
1.64
NA
2.65

27,360

3.01

10,634

24,070

2.37

10,900

23,618

2.33

75,048

2.57

694
1,451
1,196
998
264
140
193
8,231

704
1,482
1,290
1,007
265
138
195
8,576

Source: MDOC Transportation Unit, Compiled by CGL February 2009.

Observations that can be made from Table 5.6-1 can be summarized as follows:







Although ADP‟s increased from 2005 to 2007, trips decreased, resulting in an increasingly lower number of
trips per inmate. The coordinated approach to dispatching and scheduling by DOC has yielded efficiencies.
The effectiveness of the CTU can be seen in the lower trips/inmate found in the Central Region where the
majority of inmates are housed.
Most facilities of origin have 1-2 trips per inmate, regardless of custody level.
Facilities of origin that generate more than 2 trips / inmate provide additional services to the system; Medical
/Mental Health services at Shattuck and Bridgewater State Hospital; Reception Center at MCI Concord
(transferred to MCI Cedar Junction since this table was collated); Sex Offender Treatment at Massachusetts
Treatment Center. Two of these facilities contribute to the larger average trips/inmate found in the Southeast
Region.
At the present time, the DOC uses small vans with very low ridership for the majority of the average 23,000
inmate trips per year. Opportunities to increase efficiency could include expanding the vehicle inventory to
include larger occupancy vehicles.

Based on trip information provided by the DOC, the purpose of the above trips is presented in Table 5.6-2. More than
70% of the trips were made to transport DOC inmates to court appearances or medical appoints. Approximately 25%
of the annual trips, however, involved transferring an inmate to another DOC institution.

- 168 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5
Table 5.6-2 Trip Purposes for DOC Inmates
Trip Purpose
Courts
Medical
Transfers
Escorted Trips
RRC
Parole Board
Level A
Totals

2005
7,116
12,759
6,785
41
223
13
417
27,354

2006
7,763
8,948
6,623
26
233
72
405
24,070

2007
7,617
8,617
6,589
27
260
188
320
23,618

Totals
22,496
30,324
19,997
94
716
273
1,142
75,042

%
30.0%
40.4%
26.6%
0.1%
1.0%
0.4%
1.5%
100.0%

Source: MDOC Transportation Unit, Compiled by CGL February 2009.

As discussed in the Inventory and Analysis Report, the CTU provides 90% of all DOC‟s inmate transport, indicating
the common destination of trips made. The comparison of trip purposes made by facility- based vehicles as opposed
to CTU vehicles indicated:




88% of trips made with the facility-based vehicles were for medical trips as opposed to 35% of CTU trips
8% of trips made with the facility-based vehicles were for court trips as opposed to 33% of CTU trips
2% of trips made with the facility-based vehicles were for transfers as opposed to 29% of CTU trips

DOC‟s CTU system has provided efficiencies, especially related to court trips and transfer of inmates between
facilities. Opportunities to gain more efficiency for medical trips should be explored. Furthermore, the collection of
data and scheduling by DOC into this centralized system enables opportunities to schedule for efficiency as well as a
cost analysis of transportation. However, the cost of the system, discussed later in the section, is extremely high.
Sheriffs
A survey was submitted to all of the Sheriffs. Nine Sheriffs returned the requested information summarized in Table
5.6-3 for the number of trips originating from Sheriff facilities in 2007, the only year with completed data.
Table 5.6-3 Average Number of Inmate Trips in 2007 by Reporting Sheriffs
County
Region 1:Northeast
Essex
Suffolk
Region 2: Central
Middlesex
Norfolk
Worcester
Region 3: Southeast
Barnstable
Bristol*
Dukes
Plymouth*
Region 4: West
Berkshire
Franklin*
Hampden
Hampshire

2007
Average
2007 Inmate
% of Total Average Daily
Modified Trip
Annual
Trips
County Trips Population
Count
Trips/Inmate
15.16
23,556
23,556
11.0%
1,554
11.0%
1,554
15.16
23,556
23,556

Total

78,665
39,664

78,665
39,664

36.7%
18.5%

2,556
1,148

30.78
34.55

39,001
81,053
5,901
41,572

39,001
60,454
5,901
33,676

18.2%
28.2%
2.8%
15.7%

1,408
2,605
423
1,191

27.70
23.21
13.95
28.28

33,580
53,809
7,200
6,525
40,084

20,877
51,795
7,200
4,511
40,084

9.7%
24.2%
3.4%
2.1%
18.7%

991
2,635
361
168
2,106

21.07
19.66
19.94
26.85
19.03

237,083

214,470

100.00%

9,350

22.94

Source: Respective Counties, Compiled by CGL August 2008.
Notes: ADP's generated from Weekly Count Sheets by DCAM; Modified Trip Count deducted trips associated with Federal and
Other State inmates held at (*) Bristol, Franklin and Plymouth based on ratio of inmates

- 169 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Because the CMP‟s focus is providing bedspaces and services to Massachusetts inmates, trip counts were reduced
for Sheriffs housing large numbers of Federal inmate and/or inmates from Other States based on the ratio of
Massachusetts inmates (extracting federal and other state inmates) / Total inmates. These Sheriffs include Bristol,
Franklin, and Plymouth. Even with this modification, Bristol and Franklin are on the high side of trips/inmate at 28.28
and 26.85 respectively. Other than Middlesex which has the highest number of trips/inmate at 34.55 and Worcester
with 27.70 trips/inmate, most other Sheriffs had 20 or less trips/inmate.
Although not all Sheriff departments responded to the survey, based on the nine that did submit data (Suffolk was the
only large Sheriff department did not respond), each inmate bed generated approximately 23 trips per year on
average. The average length of stay is approximately 60 days (including sentenced) so, in effect, every inmate
generated approximately 3.8 trips during their period of incarceration (22.95 average trips per inmate bed/6 average
bed turnovers per year).
From a regional perspective, the Central Region, even without Norfolk County, generated the greatest number of
trips (78,665), the highest trips/inmate (30.78) and therefore the largest percentage of the combined Sheriff trips.
While representing approximately 27% of the total Sheriffs‟ ADP, the trips totaled 36.7% of all trips.
The Southeast Region (not including Dukes County), with approximately 27% of the population generated 60,454
trips or 28.2% of the total Sheriff trips. The average trips/inmate was 23.21.
The West Region, with 28% of the total ADP (not including Hampshire County), yielded 24.2% of all reported Sheriff
trips. With a relatively low average annual trips/inmate of 19.66, Hampden County operates a consolidated service
which makes approximately 80-100 trips to court and one trip to DOC‟s Intake each weekday. Medical trips are
routinely scheduled on Thursdays by coordinating schedules of all 5 counties. It appears that trips made as part of
this consolidated system are reported by Hampden County, explaining the considerably lower percentage of trips by
the other Sheriffs in the region. As described in the Inventory and Analysis Report, even though the number of miles
increased from 2003 to 2007, the operating cost reduced from $45.13 /trip to $42.64 /trip.
The Northeast Region‟s Essex County constitutes 16% of the total Sheriff ADP yet generates only 11% of all trips.
With a low trip/inmate ratio of 15.16, there is routine service with 2 dayshifts and 18 vehicles. They like many other
Sheriffs will transport inmates from other jurisdictions when trips cross other counties.
According to the survey, trips to court accounted for 86% of the all trips as opposed to the DOC‟s 30%. This is not
surprising given the sizable pretrial populations in Sheriff facilities. Table 5.6-4 illustrates the trip purposes as
represented in the response to the survey based on data provided by Hampden, Plymouth, and Worcester Counties
only. Similar data from other counties was not available.
Table 5.6-4 Trip Purposes for Sheriff Inmates
Destination

2007 Inmate
Trips

Court
State Prison
Medical/Dental
Lemuel Shattuck
Jail In State
Elsewhere in State
Other
Totals

66,189
3,291
1,362
625
4,156
1,253
76,876

% of Trips
86.1%
4.3%
1.8%
0.8%
5.4%
1.6%
0.0%
100%

Source: Plymouth, Hampden & Worcester Counties reporting, compiled by
CGL August 2008.

- 170 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Other than DOC‟s CTU and the West Region‟s consolidated service centered in Hampden County, there is limited
sharing of resources between jurisdictions. An example of potential savings is the holding of DOC inmates overnight
in Sheriff‟s facilities in their jurisdiction during multiple day court hearings, saving transportation and staff costs.
Without a shared transportation database that includes electronic scheduling, planning for potential savings and
accurately tracking costs is difficult. The need for a more integrated transportation system will be even greater with
the implementation of the CMP. Without a more integrated approach to transportation, tele-conferencing and telemedicine, implementation of the following CMP recommendations will impact transportation patterns and result in an
increase of trips and cost:


The new Multi-jurisdictional General Custody facility could result in more trips if each Sheriff has to travel to
the new facility to transport their inmates. However, a coordinated approach specific to this facility could
result in increased efficiencies.



The new Medical and Mental Health facility will provide sub-acute care (long-term) for both Sheriffs and the
DOC inmates. If each Sheriff and the DOC has to travel to the new facility to transport their inmates, there
would be an increase in trips and cost. However, depending on the services provided in the new facility and
a coordinated approach, medical trips could be reduced.



A more aggressive DOC step-down program will increase transfer trips by the DOC, increasing the number
of inmates into pre-release facilities. Coordination of these transfer trips can minimize this increase. The
actual number of trips provided by the Sheriffs for pre-release inmates is less predictable. Although these
inmates leave the facilities more frequently for work and other re-entry activities, they are allowed more
freedoms and can utilize public transportation when available. The location of these pre-release facilities
and the different Sheriffs‟ policies on inmates‟ use of public transportation will have significant impacts.



In some cases, Regional Women‟s‟ Centers could actually reduce trips in some cases since most women
are held at MCI Framingham instead of closer to their originating counties.



The transfer of Section 52A pretrial detainees from the DOC to the Sheriffs will result in a decrease of DOC
trips. Although this may result in an increase in Sheriff trips, the trips will be shorter due to proximity to
courts and can be further mitigated by scheduling multiple inmates‟ court trips.

With shared facilities, efficiencies and savings in transportation can be more easily realized with a shared
transportation database and scheduling function in place.
Although future inmates trips can be projected based on the incomplete data provided, the impact of implementing
the CMP recommendations, including new regional and multi-jurisdictional facilities and shifts in populations
dependent on classification, is less predictable.
By simply projecting an average 2.57 trips/inmate for DOC ADP1 (excluding civil commitments and county women)
and 22.94 trips/inmate for Sheriffs combined ADP2, the total trips per year in 2020 could be expected to approach
329,627 not factoring in a more aggressive DOC step-down program. For DOC alone, this represents a 19%
increase from 2007. For Sheriffs combined, this represents a 5% increase3.
(11,530x .95 = 10,953 inmates excluding civil commitments) translates beds to ADP x 2.57 = 28,150 inmate trips
beds x .85 = 13,142 inmates) translates beds to ADP x 22.94 = 301,477 inmate trips
3 In order to determine the relative increase for all Sheriffs, 22.94 trips/inmate multiplied by the total 2007 combined Sheriff ADP of 12,502 (adding Sheriff
departments missing from the survey) yielding 286,795 trips (12,502 x 22.94).
1

2 (15,461

- 171 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Based on the data provided by DOC‟s CTU for 2007, DOC‟s cost per trip was estimated at approximately $391 per
inmate trip, including transport staff cost.
As outlined in the Inventory and Analysis Report, Washington‟s DOC had a $50.78 cost per inmate trip. The WDOC
coordinated transportation service combines prison and jail transportation into a fixed route system utilizing 9 buses
and 8 vans in addition to Sheriff operated shuttles. Although the WDOC covers a larger land area (66,581 square
miles as opposed to MDOC‟s 7,838) and an inmate population approx 30% larger, it logs approximately 8% of the
MDOC‟s vehicle miles (429,331 vs. 5,185,644).
Hampden County‟s consolidated service model in the West Region reported 304,691 vehicle miles for 40,484 inmate
trips in 2007 at a cost of $42.64 per inmate trip.
While a coordinated transportation system between the DOC and Sheriffs could reduce the annual vehicle miles, the
trip purposes are significantly different for the pretrial and the sentenced populations. As noted in Table 5.6-4, more
than 85% of the county trips have historically been for pretrial court appearances. While many of these trips are
scheduled daily, most would not be candidates for a single-provider system. Additionally, the increased use of video
conferencing has the potential to significantly reduce the amount of trips necessary from Sheriff facilities to the
courts. Many of the trip needs of county sentenced inmates will be good candidates for a coordinated system.
The CMP identified approaches to affect a coordinated or consolidated state-wide inmate transport network in Chapter
4. The overall focus of these recommendations was to support the development of coordinated inmate transport
operational cost effectiveness (e.g., cost per inmate transported) and cost efficiency (e.g., cost per vehicle mile) both for
the DOC and the Sheriffs. While a comprehensive statewide system may not be the answer, regional service model at
minimum should be considered. Without better tracking of use and routes by all parties, determination of what options
for regionalization or consolidation are truly feasible is difficult. With the addition of a shared web-based transportation
database that includes scheduling and tracking of use, data can be generated for further analysis. Additionally, if this
software was available to all Sheriffs and the scheduling information shared, trip sharing would naturally develop
between Sheriffs and the DOC. In the short term and prior to implementing a comprehensive consolidation, the
investment and deployment of a web-based system should be investigated.
Long term, full implementation of the following inter-related recommendations will require a cooperative effort by the
DOC and Sheriffs:
1. Pursue Development of a Fixed Route Scheduled DOC System – The DOC should assess the feasibility of
implementing a fixed-route scheduled system within the existing Central Transport Unit (CTU) using much
larger capacity vehicles based on a cost analysis to determine if operational efficiency and cost savings would
result. The capital cost investment in new larger vehicles would need to be analyzed in a life-cycle manner to
determine if and in how many years the annual operating cost savings would be sufficient to justify or payback
the capital outlay.
2. Sheriffs‟ Deliver All New Sentenced Inmates to Regional Centers – The DOC and Sheriffs should consider
having the local counties transport all newly DOC-sentenced inmates from county jails to designated regional
DOC facilities for temporary transfer holding. Using these regional locations as transportation hubs, a DOC
scheduled fixed route bus would collect all newly sentenced inmates for transfer to the designated DOC
reception/intake center. The local sheriffs would retain responsibility for transport of all pretrial detainees.
3. Implement a Central Vehicle Purchase Program – The improved service should also be supported by a
central vehicle purchase system made available to the DOC and all Sheriffs to take advantage of lower cost

- 172 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

purchase prices that are typical in other states via the state‟s greater purchasing power from bulk
procurements.
4. Develop Uniform Dispatching, Data Reporting, Accounting, and Transport Guidelines – A joint effort
should be undertaken by all participating agencies to develop a uniform inmate transport dispatch, data
reporting, and accounting system that could be tailored to be suitable to any agency‟s local needs and
conditions. Generic monthly statistical reporting formats with agreed on performance benchmarks and
indicators could be established that would enable the DOC and Sheriffs to monitor the performance of the
new transport system and implement changes that may be needed to further improve operating efficiency
and effectiveness.
5. Review Classification and Change of Custody Issues – A more uniform classification system can clarify
change of custody issues that will be required in a more integrated transportation system.
To achieve a better coordination of resources, Items 1, 2, 4 and 5 above would have to be accomplished. Without a
rationalization of routes and schedules, the DOC operation would remain a “demand response” system. The Sheriffs
currently operate almost exclusively on this basis, with the exception that trips to court are scheduled around court
operations times. This aspect of a rationalized system will likely remain localized. However, with new regional
facilities serving county sentenced inmates, the integration of county sentenced inmate trips into a larger system that
includes the DOC is a candidate for exploration.
The Cost of Improved Inmate Transportation
At this stage of a strategic plan any capital estimate for the implementation of a more efficient integrated inmate
transportation system is not feasible. Any approach that closely examines the trip sharing possibilities between the
DOC and counties, especially for sentenced inmate trips, will yield cost savings. However, the CMP recommends
that a web-based transportation database and scheduling application be considered under the leadership of EOPSS
and coordinated with other Correction technology upgrades. This system can provide a valuable tool to the DOC and
Sheriffs to enable them to reduce transportation costs in the short term while providing reliable and consistent data to
serve as the basis for future planning.
Summary
Without a support infrastructure in place, the proposed CMP will only provide new bedspaces without the necessary
support requirements that can begin the process of achieving realistic efficiencies within the current Massachusetts
Correctional System.
Every opportunity to share support services between the DOC and Sheriffs should be explored and tools should be
provided to enable a more coordinated system.

- 173 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Part 7: Accessibility
Accessibility will be a critical component in the implementation of the Corrections Master Plan.
There are two distinctly separate sets of accessibility laws with which state-owned facilities must comply when doing
repairs, renovations, and new construction.
1) The Rules and Regulations of the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (MAAB), part of the MA State
Building Code 780 CMR, set State standards for accessible design.
2) The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) is federal civil rights law. Title II of the ADA describes the
obligations of state, county and municipal entities to provide equal access to programs, services, and
activities for people with disabilities, even if no construction is undertaken. The ADA Design Guidelines
(ADAAG) provides technical guidance for accessible design.
Removing physical barriers must be done in compliance with both Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
and 521 CMR, the Accessibility Regulations of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, applying the more stringent of
the two when the requirements differ.
The following describes in more detail how the two different sets of requirements impact existing facilities as well as
new construction and renovation as they apply to correctional facilities.
521 CMR, the Rules and Regulations of the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (MAAB)
Although published in a separate document, the Rules and Regulations of the Massachusetts Architectural Access
Board (521 CMR) are part of the Massachusetts Building Code 780 CMR. Local and state building inspectors are
required to enforce these regulations as part of their duties but they may not grant waivers or leniency. All
interpretations of the regulations and variances from the regulations must be requested from and issued by the
Architectural Access Board.
All new construction must be in full compliance with the regulations of the MAAB. The specific accessibility
requirements for correctional facilities are addressed in Section 15 - Detention Facilities.
Any alterations, remodeling, repairs or reconstruction to existing correctional facilities that require a building permit
are subject to the scoping in Section 3 of the MAAB to determine what must be made accessible as part of the
project scope. Generally, any functional area that is altered is required to be brought into compliance with MAAB. If
the cost of the work exceeds $100,000, with some specific exceptions, additional accessibility in the building may be
required.
Because these requirements are part of the building code, design and construction professionals are accustomed to
incorporating these requirements into the design and construction of new and renovated facilities. However, if a
facility was altered or constructed and was not compliant with the regulations in place at that time, the obligation for
compliance at that facility remains.

- 174 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Title II of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Title II of the ADA is a civil rights law that applies to all state, county and municipally owned and leased buildings
providing equal access for people with disabilities. Unlike the MAAB requirements, the ADA is a civil rights law and is
enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice, not by building inspectors. Whereas the focus of the MAAB requirements
is on physical requirements, the Title II of the ADA expands this focus and defines compliance to whether programs,
services, policies, and procedures serve people with disabilities in an equal manner to people without disabilities.
Additionally, there is a critical distinction between Title II and Title III, which applies to privately owned buildings used
by the public. Public agencies occupying privately owned buildings typically have to meet programmatic requirements
not required of the private building owner.
In 1991, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued regulations requiring state and municipal entities to conduct an ADA
Self Evaluation and Transition Plan for the programs, services, and activities in their facilities. The self-evaluation
required by the 1991 statute had to examine each of the prison‟s programs, services, and activities; rules, policies,
and practices; as well as any associated physical and operational issues for non-discrimination towards inmates with
disabilities whether they require an accessible cell, seek equal access to programs (e.g., drug treatment or
education), seek auxiliary aids and services (e.g., sign language interpreter, reader, materials in accessible formats
such as large print or Braille); or seek disability-related healthcare and personal assistance services, supplies, or
equipment. Where programs and services were not accessible to and usable by people with disabilities because of
physical barriers, program/operational accommodations or removal of the barriers were required to assure equal
benefit by 1995.
In 1993 DCAM (then DCPO) and the Massachusetts Office on Disabilities (MOD) guided agencies in preparing their
Self Evaluation and Transition Plans with administrative surveys and the ADA Transition Plan Workbook.
Each of the county and state correctional /detention facilities in the Commonwealth completed an ADA SelfEvaluation and Transition Plan between 1993 and 1994. A copy of the documents should reside at the facility and
should have been updated on an annual basis until all barriers to equal participation have been removed. It is unclear
whether these reports exist at the facilities. Without a record of required barrier removal and documentation of actual
barrier removal, each facility may have to initiate a new assessment to determine that its programs, services and
activities serve people with disabilities and physical barriers have been removed or have been identified for removal,
as required.
All state agencies are required under Title II of the ADA to have a Transition Plan, an ADA Coordinator, a grievance
procedure, and signage indicating who is responsible for making accommodations for persons with disabilities. 1
Correctional facilities receiving federal funds have had a further obligation under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 to ensure that persons with disabilities have equal access to any programs, services, or activities offered to
people without disabilities. If a public entity has complied with the transition plan requirement of a Federal agency
regulation implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, then the new requirements for a transition plan
shall apply only to those policies and practices that were not included in the previous transition plan.
On September 15, 2010, the DOJ published amendments to the ADA, including new requirements for correctional
facilities that affect the scoping and design of accessible detention and correctional facilities.
1

See ADA Best Practices Tool Kit (http://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/toolkitmain.htm) for more information on ADA Coordinators, grievance procedures and
signage.

- 175 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Although Title II has no true „grandfathering‟ for existing facilities not being altered, there are safe harbors for
Program Accessibility requirements (Subpart D, Section 35.150, Title II). The amended ADA includes a general "safe
harbor" under which elements in covered facilities that were built or altered in compliance with the 1991 Standards
would not be required to be brought into compliance with the 2010 Standards until the elements were subject to a
planned alteration, permitted on or after March 15, 2012.
Title II of the American with Disabilities Act as it applies to Correctional Facilities
Recent court cases and DOJ briefs illustrate the intent and scope of the ADA as it is being applied to correctional
institutions. The summary below provides a brief overview of the considerations required in order to eliminate any
remaining discriminatory practices and remove associated physical barriers, if necessary.
Under Title II, the term qualified individual with a disability means an individual with a disability who, with or
without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or
transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for
the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.
Title II prohibits a public entity from using eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a
disability or a class of individuals with disabilities “from fully and equally enjoying any service, program, or activity,
unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the service, program, or activity being offered.”
Program access is a term unique to the application of Title II. The affirmative obligation of “program access” in
existing facilities is that the public entity operate each program, service, and activity so that each of them, “when
viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” In the correctional setting,
this requirement impacts policy, transportation, housing, bathing, dining, medical, employment, education, visitation,
and architectural components involving all aspects of prison operations that affect inmates, visitors, staff, and
volunteers, ranging from executive level administration to the daily interactions that correctional officers have with
inmates.
The Supreme Court held in 1998 that “state prisons fall squarely within the statutory definition of „public entity,‟” and
that Title II of the ADA, therefore, “unmistakably includes State prisons and prisoners within its coverage.” The Court
made clear that the various programs, services, and activities offered in correctional institutions are covered by the
ADA and, therefore, are required to be accessible to individuals with disabilities even though participation in most of
those programs is not voluntary. “Modern prisons provide inmates with many recreational „activities,‟ medical
„services,‟ and educational and vocational „programs,‟ all of which at least theoretically „benefit‟ the prisoners (and
any of which disabled prisoners could be „excluded from participation in‟).” These have been determined through
several court cases to include but not be limited to:




Contact visitation programs
Rehabilitative programs and services
Inmate drug treatment programs





Use of showers, toilets, and sinks
Obtaining meals
Use of recreational areas

The ADA provides specific prohibitions that apply to the correctional setting, including, but not limited to, the
following:


The outright denial of the benefits of a prisons programs, services, and activities, such as excluding an inmate
who uses a wheelchair from recreation privileges because there is no accessible recreation area, excluding an
- 176 -

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

inmate from bathing because a prison does not have accessible shower facilities or will not provide necessary
bathing assistance, or excluding an inmate with diabetes from a commissary program because the
commissary does not sell any items the inmate can eat. [28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)]


Providing an unequal, different, or separate opportunity to participate in programs, services, and activities,
such as placing an inmate with a low security classification in a maximum security setting because the inmate
uses a wheelchair and requires an accessible cell, which the facility does not have available at the appropriate
security classification, or providing an inmate who uses a wheelchair with only indoor recreational activities
because the outdoor recreation area or the route to it is not accessible. [28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)]



Engaging in contractual, licensing, or other arrangements that deny participation; provide unequal aids,
benefits, or services; perpetuate discrimination; or otherwise limit enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage,
or opportunity, such as transporting an inmate who uses a wheelchair unsafely in an inaccessible vehicle
because the facility‟s transportation contractor does not have accessible vehicles or denying the benefits of
medical care to inmates with disabilities because the medical contractor does not provide appropriate
medication to an inmate with HIV or a psychiatric disability. [28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130(b)(1), (3)]



Using eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out people with disabilities, such as requiring inmates
participating in anger management courses to be able to hear or requiring inmates who participate in a jobs or
trustee program to be able to see, hear, or walk. [28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(8)]



Failing to integrate inmates with disabilities, such as segregating all inmates with a particular disability to one
dorm, one class, or one meal time. [28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d)]



Failing to make reasonable modifications (sometimes referred to as reasonable accommodations) in rules,
policies, practices, or procedures, such as not making an exception to a drug treatment programs rule
requiring inmates to be medication free in order to permit participation by an inmate who requires medication
for a psychiatric disability. [28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)]



Failing to provide auxiliary aids and services necessary to achieve effective communication with individuals
with disabilities, such as refusing to provide written materials in large print for an inmate with low vision to
participate in a GED program or failing to procure a sign language interpreter for a deaf inmate to participate in
a program. [28 C.F.R. §§ 35.160-164]

Ultimately, these provisions work together to prohibit all disability discrimination in all of the programs, services, and
activities of public entities. In the correctional context, where the public entity has custody of an individual with a
disability, such prohibitions also include failing to provide critical healthcare and personal services (e.g., access to
mammograms and pap smears), necessary consumable medical supplies (e.g., sterile catheters, colostomy bags,
and diapers), durable medical equipment and other disability-related equipment (e.g., wheelchairs, walkers, crutches,
and canes), and personal assistance services (e.g., assistance in eating, dressing, bathing, bowel and bladder
management, transferring to and from a wheelchair, and maintenance of a cell). Recent guidelines from the DOJ
describe requirements for accessible medical facilities: Access to Medical Care for Individuals with Mobility Disabilities.
Program Access, Barrier Removal, and Undo Burden:
As previously mentioned, the affirmative obligation of “program access” in existing facilities is that the public entity
operate each program, service, and activity so that each of them, “when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to
and usable by individuals with disabilities.” Although existing facilities may need to be physically altered to make
- 177 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

programs, services and activities accessible to individuals with disabilities, the ADA does not necessarily require a
public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
For example, if a public entity has two pre- ADA (1991) prisons, both have the same programs, services, activities,
and security classification, but only one has architecturally accessible cells, Title II program access requirements
would permit an inmate who uses a wheelchair to be housed in the prison with the accessible cells, in lieu of
requiring architectural modifications at the other facility. However, if the prison without accessible cells has a drug
treatment program and the prison with accessible cells does not, it would be a violation of Title II to deny an inmate
with a disability participation in the drug treatment program, whether or not participation in the program is a condition
of the inmate‟s sentence or parole, because he was housed in a facility where the program was not offered.
A public entity is not required to make architectural changes to existing facilities where operational or programmatic
methods are effective in achieving compliance. Alternative methods of making programs, services, and activities
accessible in existing buildings includes redesign of equipment; reassignment of services to accessible buildings or
accessible spaces within buildings; assignment of aides to beneficiaries; making programs available electronically;
and delivery of services at alternate accessible sites, among others.
In choosing among available methods for meeting the requirements of program access, a public entity shall give
priority to those methods that offer services, programs, and activities in the “most integrated setting appropriate to the
needs of the qualified individual with disabilities.” This must be weighed against the fundamental concern in
correctional settings about the safety of inmates with disabilities being housed and served with the general
population, for fear that they will be victimized. The ADA states that even when a separate program is available,
individuals with disabilities cannot be denied the opportunity to participate in programs that are not separate or
different. Even though a special program is designed to provide a benefit to persons with disabilities, its existence
cannot be used to restrict the participation of a person with a disability in a general, integrated program.
A public entity is not required to take an action that it can demonstrate would result in “a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens”. The regulatory language
makes clear that the burden of proving that an action would result in a fundamental alteration or undue burden rests
with the public entity. And a decision not to take an action on such grounds must be made after considering all
resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity. A written statement and
analysis, setting out the basis for the determination, must be signed by a high ranking official of the entity. And most
importantly, a claim of undue burden does not relieve the public entity of its obligations to find feasible modifications
and to not discriminate on the basis of disability.
There is a provision regarding Direct Threat [28 C.F.R. §§ 35.139] which does not require a public entity to permit an
individual to participate in or benefit from the services, programs, or activities when that individual poses a direct
threat to the health or safety of others. Determination of whether an individual poses a direct threat must be carefully
assessed, based on current medical knowledge or the best based objective evidence to ascertain whether
reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk.
As the DOC has multiple facilities that house inmates of the same custody level, program accessibility can be met by
targeting specific facilities in each custody level. As the CMP takes a regional approach, to meeting its needs into
2020, careful consideration of Sheriff facilities on a regional basis must be given to determine how the
Commonwealth can most effectively ensure program accessibility for all inmates.

- 178 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Accessible cells
The 2010 ADA Standards establish new requirements for numbers of accessible cells and their location. The DOJ
has increased the required minimum number of cells from 2% to 3% (with a minimum of one) in alterations and new
construction for both jails and prisons, in spite of the different length of sentences.
The DOJ considers the 3% requirement a minimum; more may be required to meet the intent of the law. Accessible
cells must be dispersed across all classification levels. This requirement was based on demographic analysis of state
and federal corrections indicating a rise in the number of disabled prisoners and prisoners aging in place as they
serve life sentences without eligibility for parole. It should be noted that the MAAB has required 3% dispersed
accessible cells for a number of years, triggered by new construction or alterations/renovations that trigger full
compliance. Therefore, it is more likely that facilities that have undergone alterations or additions are currently
compliant. However, with each new CMP project, whether an addition or alteration, it is critical that the number and
distribution of accessible cells be evaluated on a facility basis.
When alterations occur the new number of accessible cells should be provided within the altered area or at least
within the same facility, unless technically infeasible, in which case, accessible cells can be provided elsewhere in
the system. In fact, alterations are required to comply with the 2010 Standards except that the provision of accessible
mobility features (807.2 of the 2010 Standards) for a minimum of 3%, but not fewer than 1, of the total number of
cells being altered until at least 3%, but not fewer than 1, of the total number of cells in a facility have compliant
mobility features. Altered cells with mobility features shall be provided in each classification level. However, when
alterations are made to specific cells, detention and correctional facility operators may satisfy their obligation to
provide the required number of cells with mobility features by providing the required mobility features in substitute
cells (cells other than those where alterations are originally planned), provided that each substitute cell:






Is located within the same prison site;
Is integrated with other cells to the maximum extent feasible;
Has, at a minimum, equal physical access as the altered cells to areas used by inmates or detainees for
visitation, dining, recreation, educational programs, medical services, work programs, religious services, and
participation in other programs that the facility offers to inmates or detainees; and,
If it is technically infeasible to locate a substitute cell within the same prison site, a substitute cell must be
provided at another prison site within the corrections system.

The Department of Justice produced a useful publication for accessible cell design in 2005: DOJ Guidance on
Accessible Cells. It addresses cell design, dispersal, security and furnishings.
Accessibility throughout the Correctional Facility
In addition to accessible cells, other elements of correctional facilities must also comply with accessibility standards
in order to provide access to a correctional facility‟s programs, services, and activities for inmates and visitors with
disabilities. These accessibility elements include parking, loading zones, entrances, routes throughout the facility,
ramps, curb ramps, stairs, lifts and elevators, doors, drinking fountains, toilet rooms, toilets, sinks, handrails,
showers, bathing elements, alarms, telephones, fixed or built-in seating and tables, assembly areas, and controls and
operating mechanisms, such as vending machines and dispensers in visitation areas. Medical facilities within
correctional facilities, regardless of licensure, are now required to provide accessible features.

- 179 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Summary
As the Commonwealth begins to address the bedspace needs into 2020, it is imperative that compliance with the
requirements of Title II of the ADA be ‟front and center‟ in the evaluation of existing facilities as well as in the
alterations to existing facilities and construction of new facilities. Consistent with the CMP‟s regional approach,
providing program access throughout the system will require strategic evaluations of the system as a whole.
Where Transition Plans are not available, new plans must be developed. Sheriffs and the DOC are encouraged to
request assistance from DCAM to begin this process.

- 180 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

Part 8: Sustainability
A major goal of the CMP is to create a more integrated, efficient and cost-effective Corrections System. As state
budgets continue to be challenged maintaining the status quo is not sustainable. Creating a more sustainable
system requires a focus on lower operating costs, lowering energy consumption, consideration of maintenance costs,
minimizing the impact on the physical environment, maximizing the use of existing facilities, and implementing
policies that reduce the need for expansion.
With anticipated population growth and current overcrowding, expansion of facilities to address bedspace needs and
program requirements will be required as outlined in the preceding sections of this Chapter. With this expansion, the
reduction of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with Executive Order 484 is
mandated.
Creating a more sustainable and energy efficient system must be foremost in the implementation of this Corrections
Master Plan.
Sustainability Strategies in the Corrections Master Plan
The first step in creating a more sustainable system requires reducing the energy demand and avoiding unnecessary
expansion. In addition to EO 484, the CMP has incorporated sustainable strategies that can be summarized below.


Improve existing structures to gain bedspace capacity (Potential Capacity improvements)
By implementing potential capacity improvements in existing facilities, greater efficiency is possible. This
strategy can lower the number of bedspaces needed in new facilities, shifting the focus to creating greater
use of existing buildings and freeing resources to enhance their energy efficiency.



Develop Multi-jurisdictional Facilities
As bedspace demands fluctuate among jurisdictions, the addition of Multi-jurisdictional facilities can add
flexibility to the system, reducing the likelihood that bedspaces will be underutilized. This strategy allows for
a more even distribution of populations as bedspace needs vary and enables a more efficient means of
addressing bedspace needs.



Emphasis on Pre-release Facilities
On a daily basis, pre-release / re-entry inmates spend a greater amount of their time outside of the
facilities, resulting in less energy consumption at these facilities. With the implementation of a classification
system that enables more inmates to participate in pre-release and re-entry programming, the CMP seeks
to better prepare inmates for re-entry, with the goal of reducing recidivism, and decreasing the need for
more bedspaces.



Consolidation of special populations
By consolidating special populations, the system can provide programs more cost-effectively and
efficiently. This also allows for a more efficient use of bedspaces by eliminating the need to devote entire
units within multiple facilities for these populations that require segregation from the general population..



Expanded use of technology to improve operational efficiency
- 181 -

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5

The CMP recommends the expanded use of technology to improve operations and reduce inmate
transportation. Some of these measures are tele-medicine, tele-conferencing and electronic records.


Transportation
The CMP recommends the implementation of web-based transportation scheduling to encourage trip
sharing between the DOC and the Sheriffs in order to reduce trips. Additionally, consideration should be
given to increasing the size of the vehicles used and instituting some consistent route schedules. Telemedicine and tele-conferencing can reduce the reliance on vehicular transport of inmates, reducing fuel
consumption and greenhouse emissions.



Facility upgrades prioritization
Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emission reductions will be critical criteria in the prioritization of
capital funds for facility improvements.

Executive Order 484
Executive Order 484 (EO484), Leading by Example – Clean Energy and Efficient Buildings, sets the parameters that
State facilities are to meet and mandates that State agencies prioritize practices and programs that address
resource use, including a reduction in energy consumption derived from fossil fuels and emissions associated with
such consumption.
Energy targets to be met, to the greatest extent feasible as set forth in EO484 can be summarized as follows:
1.

Reduction of greenhouse emissions by 25% by fiscal year 2012, 40% by fiscal year 2020 and 80% by
2050. In calculating emissions, fiscal year 2002 is to be used as the baseline, and emission reductions are
to be measured on an absolute basis and not adjusted for facility expansion, load growth, or weather.

2.

Reduce overall energy consumption at state owned and leased building (which the state pays directly for
energy) by 20% by fiscal year 2012 and 35% by 2020. Such reductions shall be based on fiscal year 2004
baseline and measured on a BTU per square foot basis.

3.

Procure 15% of agency annual electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2012 and 30% by 2020.

4.

Utilize bio heat products with a minimum blend of 3% bio based materials for all heating applications that
use #2 fuel starting with the winter of 2007-2008, and 10% bio heat blend by 2012.

5.

All new construction and major renovations, effective immediately, must meet the Mass. LEED Plus green
building standard established by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Sustainable Design Roundtable.

6.

Reduce potable water use, as compared to 2006, by 10% by 2012 and 15% by 2020.

To meet these targets, agencies may use a variety of energy conservations, energy efficiency, and renewable
strategies including, but not limited to the following:




Comprehensive on-site energy efficiency programs
Installation of energy efficient HVAC equipment
Fuel switching
- 182 -

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Strategic Capital Plan

Chapter 5








Purchase of energy efficient products
Increased energy conservation by employees
Installation of on-site renewable energy and combined heat and power systems
Procurement of renewable energy
Use of bio-based and alternative fuels
Purchase of renewable Energy Certificates

Energy projects by DCAM Energy Team
Correctional facilities are particularly good candidates for energy performance contracts, water reduction and
renewable energy projects. DCAM‟s Energy Team has had great success with these projects and will continue to
work with Sheriffs and the DOC in the implementation of these projects.

- 183 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Strategic Capital Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan
The Final Report

Chapter 6
Implementation Plan

Chapter 6 Implementation Plan
In a strategic plan, costs are estimated based on a set of assumptions derived from the current market and then
projected into future conditions. Just as the projection of future inmate population is an inexact science dependent
upon so many variables, projecting future construction costs and escalation is also less than exact. At this stage, the
costs that are used to estimate the level of capital investment into the correctional system are based upon 2009.
During the development of this plan, construction costs have experienced fairly dramatic variations. As with any long
range plan, the numbers must be periodically updated. However, given the current conditions, the rate and timing of
the expansion of the economy and therefore the increases in costs, is even more difficult to predict. Nevertheless,
the intent of this section is to outline the model used for estimating the future capital costs required to meet the
bedspace needs of 2020, assuming no major legislative changes. These estimates must be re-revaluated regularly
as market conditions change.
As discussed in Chapter 3, every opportunity to reduce incarceration needs should be investigated and pursued.
With legislative and policy changes, the Commonwealth can reduce this need and therefore the anticipated costs.
Early in this study, the needs within the Corrections System were found to outpace the available funding, requiring
careful consideration as to the best investment of initial funds to obtain maximum benefit and set the course towards
a more integrated and efficient system.
Based on the bedspace analysis and recommendations, Chapter 6 identifies the order of magnitude capital costs to
provide the bedspaces needed for 2020, assuming no major legislative changes. Then, based on the
recommendations in Chapter 5, the costs for the first phase of implementation are explored.

METHOD FOR ESTIMATING COSTS
A strategic capital investment plan must include a proposed cost, or “best estimate”, in order to understand the order
of magnitude of cost associated with the needs from which priorities can be generated. For the purpose of this plan,
the most recent unit costs have been used to establish an order of magnitude cost estimate to meet the bedspace
needs for 2020.
- 184 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Appendix C - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Chapter 6

Since, at this stage, specific building programs, building specifications, and specific site selections are not yet known,
the table of values serves as one tool in the evaluation of a future direction for corrections in the Commonwealth.
Actual project budgets must be confirmed through more detailed assessments as part of the standard DCAM Study
process for each project. The methodology for estimating costs is outlined below:
Capital Costs – New Bedspaces
1. Assign a “block” amount of square footage for a housing unit or total new facility based upon a custody level.
2. Assign a cost per square foot based upon recent experience to types of housing units, facility components,
or a total new facility to develop a preliminary Estimated Construction Cost (ECC) / SF.
3. With the construction cost estimated, a factor for project costs (e.g., off-site utilities, landscaping, A/E fees,
contingencies, etc.) is added, based upon the historical experience of DCAM, to provide a Total Project Cost
(TPC). A multiplier of 1.3 has been added to the ECC $/SF to develop preliminary TPC $/SF. Escalation is
not included in these costs and should be added once timing of construction is assessed.
4. Area per bed is multiplied by the TPC $/SF to develop a cost per bed.
In Table 6-1, outlines the values based upon recent experiences of the consulting team in the Northeast.
Table 6-1 Cost Model for Various Facility Types
Custody or
Functional Level
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Community
Women
Medical/Mental Health
Special Programming
Pre-Arraignment
Jail
Program Space
Support Space

Area/Bed
Housing
Facility
200
400
225
450
200
400
185
385
230
460
325
650
240
425
175
300
200
410
35
40
45
60

Construction $/SF
Housing
Facility
$
450 $
425
$
425 $
375
$
300 $
250
$
275 $
225
$
415 $
370
$
500 $
475
$
400 $
360
$
425 $
400
$
425 $
400
N/A
$
275
N/A
$
325

Total Project Cost/ SF
Housing
Facility
$
585 $
553
$
553 $
488
$
390 $
325
$
358 $
293
$
540 $
481
$
650 $
618
$
520 $
468
$
553 $
520
$
553 $
520
N/A
$
358
N/A
$
423

Total Project Cost/ Bed
Housing
Facility
$117,000
$221,000
$124,313
$219,375
$78,000
$130,000
$66,138
$112,613
$124,085
$221,260
$211,250
$401,375
$124,800
$198,900
$96,688
$156,000
$110,500
$213,200
N/A
$14,300
N/A
$25,350

Source: Carter Goble Lee; March 2009
Note: Project Cost multiplier of 1.3 should be added to construction cost for total cost.

The Housing columns in the table above assume the addition of bedspaces to an existing facility, therefore assuming
use of the existing support spaces. The Facility columns assume the full complement of support spaces would be
required with the addition of the bedspaces. At this stage of planning, the locations for all of these bedspaces has not
been identified and a determination of the amount of support spaces required for the addition of the bedspaces is not
yet known. Therefore, the Housing and Facility columns represent a range of costs associated with the addition of
each type of bedspace.
Depending on the type of facility, the Total Project Cost per bed in today‟s dollars ranges from $66,000/ bed for a
community / pre-release addition to over $400,000/ bed for a new free standing medical / mental health facility. Of
note is the decrease in cost per bed for community and minimum custody bedspaces ($225 - $300 per bed) as
compared to medium and maximum custody ($375 - $450 per bed).
- 185 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Implementation Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Chapter 6

The space allocation for specialized medical and mental health facility planning outlines 650 gross square feet per
inmate patient for new facilities. The reason for the higher space allocation from a general custody facility begins with
larger sleeping areas to accommodate the additional equipment (hospital beds, C-PAP equipment, maneuvering
space, etc.) and a much higher percentage of support space for examination and treatment. Using the 650 SF
planning basis and the 500-bed facility size, a typical new health care facility would be 325,000 square feet.
Similar to the need for additional space for these specialized facilities, the construction cost (cost per square foot) is
also greater than a typical general custody facility mainly due to the more sophisticated equipment and construction
to accommodate the range of acuity and custody levels.
Similar to the need for additional space for these specialized facilities, the construction cost (cost per square foot) is
also greater than a typical general custody facility mainly due to the more sophisticated equipment and construction
to accommodate the range of acuity and custody levels.
Capital Costs – Existing Facility Improvements
There are two sets of existing facility improvements considered in this discussion: 1) Repairs or replacements due to
outdated or failing conditions as requested by Sheriffs and the DOC and 2) Potential Capacity improvements.
Existing condition improvement costs are more difficult to assess for several reasons. First, the scope of an
improvement project can grow or decrease depending on technical conditions and additional work triggered for code
or accessibility compliance unique in each case. Secondly, there are sometimes several approaches to implement
improvements that require consideration and costing in order to determine the best course of action. Some identified
improvements/repairs will be superseded by the Corrections Master Plan initiatives (renovations or expansion of
facilities) and/or energy efficiency improvements which are implemented through performance contracts and funded
from the resulting energy savings.
For the purposes of the CMP, the improvement costs associated with requests provided by each Sheriff and the DOC
were used in order to get an order of magnitude estimate of potential capital need. A determination of whether an
identified need would be superseded by the other initiatives or whether the need would be funded through a deferred
maintenance budget was not made at this point. Rather the goal was to calculate what improvements have been
identified to date to assess the order of magnitude of investment potentially required.
In addition to requested improvements and repairs, potential capacity improvements have been identified. These
improvements which are based strictly on the CMP Baseline Capacity criteria, if determined to be feasible at a
facility, would increase the bedspace capacity to the Potential Capacity level. In all but two cases, these potential
capacity improvements include the addition of plumbing fixtures. An estimated 681 showers (or shower controls), 159
sinks, and 64 toilets would need to be added to gain as many as 5,088 bedspaces in existing facilities. Given that the
cost of new bedspaces in today‟s dollars can range from $66,000 to $401,000 per bedspace depending on the type,
there is great incentive to gain the maximum capacity from each existing facility based on the CMP Baseline Capacity
criteria which defines minimum bedspace requirements.
Since the application of the CMP Baseline Capacity was significantly lower than the Current Beds counts in many
facilities as illustrated in Chapter 1, potential capacity improvements will create better conditions for the current
populations housed. In fact, in many cases, the implementation of potential capacity improvements could enable a reevaluation of Design or Rated Capacities which are used as the basis of evaluating and reporting overcrowding.

- 186 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Implementation Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Chapter 6

In addition to capital costs, operating costs must also be considered and a similar order of magnitude estimate has
been made as outlined below.
Operating Costs – New Beds
Operating costs will be a critical component in the implementation of this Master Plan. As operating costs can vary
quite dramatically due to a facility‟s age, configuration, location, and many other factors, at this stage of planning,
staffing ratios by facility type are used to estimate operating costs. Without specifying exact locations of inmates and
evaluating each facility, estimating an order of magnitude of the annual increase in operating costs associated with
the addition of bedspaces is the goal of this exercise.
1. Assign a general staffing ratio based upon total factored staff to inmates to estimate the additional staff that
will be required to operate a facility component or facility based on varying custody or functional levels.
2. Apply an average cost per staff to include salaries, benefits, and all the other non-personnel costs that are
required to operate a correctional facility.
3. To obtain a rough estimate of non-personnel operating costs, a multiplier of 1.4 is applied to personnel
costs; a 1.8 multiplier is used for medical / mental health facilities.
4. Divide the annual operating costs based on staffing by the staffing ratio to obtain an estimate of operating
costs/ bed.
Table 6-2 Operating Cost Model for Various Facility Types
Annual
Staffing Ratio/Bed
Operating Cost/Bed
Average
Operating
Custody or Functional
Annual
Cost based Housing
Level
Housing
Facility
Facility
Cost/Staff
on Staff
Maximum
1:4.5
1:2.0 $ 71,500 $ 100,100 $ 22,244 $ 50,050
Medium
1:8.0
1:3.0 $ 68,900 $
96,460 $ 12,058 $ 32,153
Minimum
1:10.0
1:5.0 $ 62,400 $
87,360 $
8,736 $ 17,472
Community
1:12.0
1:5.5 $ 58,500 $
81,900 $
6,825 $ 14,891
Women
1:8.0
1:4.0 $ 68,900 $
96,460 $ 12,058 $ 24,115
Medical/Mental Health
1:2.5
1:2.0 $ 74,100 $ 133,380 $ 53,352 $ 66,690
Special Programming
1:9.0
1:4.0 $ 62,400 $
87,360 $
9,707 $ 21,840
Pre-Arraignment
1:8.0
1:5.0 $ 55,900 $
78,260 $
9,783 $ 15,652
Jail
1:10.0
1:11.0 $ 68,900 $
96,460 $
9,646 $
8,769
Program Space
N/A
1:12.0 $ 58,500 $
81,900
NA $
6,825
Support Space
N/A
1.8.0 $ 61,100 $
85,540
NA $ 10,693
Source: Carter Goble Lee; March 2009
Note: A 1.4 multiplier is added to the average staff cost for total operating cost/position. For medical, a 1.8 multiplier is applied.

Similar to the capital costs, the range of operating costs can vary depending on the configuration of the facility, the
number of inmates served at a facility, the age of the facility, the efficiency of the equipment, the union rates, and the
location of the facility. The figures in the Housing column are intended to represent the low end of the potential
operating cost range while the figures in the Facility column are intended to represent the high end.

- 187 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Implementation Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Chapter 6

Using the Cost Model outlined in Table 6-1 and the Operating Costs Model outlined in Table 6-2, increases in annual
operating costs that would be required to meet the 2020 projected bedspace need was estimated at as much as
$120 million. With needs far out-pacing revenues, this trend is clearly unsustainable. As outlined in previous
chapters, all initiatives to reduce incarceration and create cost-effective operations must be explored.
Operating costs associated with sub-acute medical and mental health bedspaces may include some staff that is
currently part of the medical and mental health care vendor contracts and would likely continued to be covered in this
fashion. Nevertheless, the staffing costs would be carried by the Commonwealth and were included in the order-of
magnitude estimate.
Although the CMP recommends new beds as part of Phase 1, potential operating budgets and all means to achieve
savings must be considered on a case-by-case basis prior to the construction of a new or expanded facility. The
CMP recommends that operating costs be an integral component of the Building Study phase. Prior to Building
Study certification, the Executive Office for Administration and Finance (ANF) will be included as part of the team to
work with all parties to agree upon the population to be housed within the facility, the operating budget of that facility
at occupancy, and to confirm that the Commonwealth has adequate dollars to devote to the facility in the long term.
This budget will take into account the variable costs of housing inmates (such as food, medical, clothing), staffing,
and fixed costs (such as utilities and maintenance). Additionally, ANF will work with all parties to look for potential
cost savings associated with each project. However, it will be the responsibility of the overseeing Sheriff to manage
its budget.
As the CMP recommends assigning inmates to regional correctional facilities in order to achieve efficiencies and
improve recidivism (instead of based solely on jurisdictional custody), the CMP recommends that EOPSS, ANF,
Sheriffs and DOC work together to better understand the cost per inmate at different facilities and security levels.
Once this analysis is complete, all stakeholders should be included in developing a model that assigns operating
dollars that follow inmates as they move through the various custody levels and facilities in the correctional system
prior to release. This inmate allocation model will allow for the seamless transfer of inmates to reduce overcrowding
at certain facilities, prepare inmates for re-entry, and enable facilities to operate more efficiently.

THE COST OF MEETING 2020 BEDSPACE NEEDS
Using the Cost Model outlined in Table 6-1 and the Operating Costs Model outlined in Table 6-2, a range of the
capital costs for new bedspaces to meet the projected need in 2020 were estimated. Four scenarios were
considered. As the feasibility of potential capacity improvements requires investigation at each facility, the addition of
new bedspaces was estimated utilizing the CMP Baseline Capacity (assuming no potential capacity improvements)
and utilizing Potential Capacity (assuming potential capacity improvements are feasible). Since the classification
system implemented will have a tremendous impact on the quantity and type of bedspaces needed, both the current
and proposed classification systems were applied. The four scenarios considered are as follows:
1)
2)
3)
4)

CMP Baseline Capacity with the Current Classification System
CMP Baseline Capacity with the Proposed Classification System
Potential Capacity with the Current Classification System
Potential Capacity with the Proposed Classification System

In each scenario, an estimate has been provided for Housing and Facility for each category (New Square Feet, Total
Project Cost). These two columns represent a range of capital construction costs as well as operating costs,
depending on the extent of program and support spaces required to provide the additional bedspaces.
- 188 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Implementation Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Chapter 6

CMP Baseline Capacity with the Current Classification System
Utilizing the CMP Baseline Capacity with no potential capacity improvements and with the current classification
system, Table 6-3 illustrates the range of capital costs (expressed in today‟s dollars) to meet the projected 2020
bedspace needs. Because the current classification system requires a greater number of higher custody bedspaces
and does not assume Potential Capacity can be achieved in existing facilities, this scenario is the most costly.
Table 6-3 2020 Capital Cost Estimate – CMP Baseline Capacity & Current Classification System
New Bedspace Type

Total New
Beds

Special Custody Populations
Women - Secure
Women - Pre-release
Subacute Medical & MH*
Men - Pre-release
Subtotal Special Populations
Men -General Custody
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
General Custody - Totals
Total - Special & General

New Square Feet
Housing

457
114
1,270
821
2,662

105,133
21,060
412,750
151,903
690,846

381
6,657
367
7,406
10,068

76,274
1,497,932
73,385
1,647,591
2,338,438

Total Project Cost (TPC)

Facility

210,265
43,828
825,500
316,123
1,395,717

Housing

$56,719,021
$7,529,079
$268,287,500
$54,305,492
$386,841,092

Facility

$101,137,531
$12,819,783
$509,746,250
$92,466,108
$716,169,672

152,547
$44,620,036
$84,282,290
2,995,865
$827,607,660 $1,460,484,105
146,771
$28,620,308
$47,700,514
3,295,183
$900,848,004 $1,592,466,909
4,690,900 $1,287,689,096 $2,308,636,581

Notes: * Subacute Medical & MH Beds assumed to be all new beds; Sheriff bedspaces included in Medium Custody

As Table 6-3 illustrates, Total Project Costs are estimated to range from approximately $1.3 billion to $2.3 billion
dollars in 2009 dollars, without escalation.
CMP Baseline Capacity with the Proposed Classification System
Utilizing the CMP Baseline Capacity with no potential capacity improvements and with the proposed classification
system, Table 6-4 illustrates the range of capital costs (expressed in today‟s dollars) to meet the projected 2020
bedspace needs. Because the proposed classification system assumes a greater number of DOC inmates in less
costly minimum and pre-release custody bedspaces as well as a lower number of staff required per inmate, this
scenario illustrates the financial benefit of a more aggressive reclassification system.
Table 6-4 2020 Capital Cost Estimate – CMP Baseline Capacity & Proposed Classification System
New Bedspace Type

Total New
Beds

Special Custody Populations
Women - Secure
Women - Pre-release
Subacute Medical & MH*
Men - Pre-release
Subtotal Special Populations
Men -General Custody
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
General Custody - Totals
Total - Special & General

New Square Feet
Housing

417
151
1270
2280
4,118

95,865
27,937
412,750
421,846
958,398

43
5,420
483
5,947
10,065

8,590
1,219,586
96,659
1,324,835
2,283,232

Total Project Cost (TPC)

Facility

191,730
58,139
825,500
877,895
1,953,264

Housing

$51,719,247
$9,987,388
$268,287,500
$150,809,845
$480,803,980

Facility

$92,222,271
$17,005,553
$509,746,250
$256,784,331
$875,758,405

17,180
$5,025,166
$9,491,980
2,439,172
$673,821,254 $1,189,096,331
193,317
$37,696,831
$62,828,052
2,649,669
$716,543,251 $1,261,416,363
4,602,933 $1,197,347,232 $2,137,174,768

Notes: * Subacute Medical & MH Beds assumed to be all new beds; Sheriff bedspaces included in Medium Custody

- 189 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Implementation Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Chapter 6

As Table 6-4 illustrates, Total Project Costs are estimated to range from approximately $1.2 billion to $2.14 billion
dollars in 2009 dollars, without escalation as compared to the $1.3 billion to $2.3 billion associated with the current
classification system. Although there is some savings in capital costs, the more critical and re-occurring savings
would be expected in operating costs with more inmates in lower custody bedspaces.
Potential Capacity with the Current Classification System
Utilizing the Potential Capacity and with the current classification system, Table 6-5 illustrates the range of capital
costs (expressed in today‟s dollars) to meet the projected 2020 bedspace needs. Although the current classification
system requires a greater number of higher custody, this scenario assumes that targeted capacity improvements can
be implemented in existing facilities in order to achieve the higher Potential Capacity.
By implementing potential capacity improvements, the maximum standards-based bedspace capacity can be
achieved in the existing facilities, reducing the number of new bedspaces required. Since these improvements are
estimated at $10,000 to $20,000 per bed as compared to $66,000 to $221,000 per bed, significant capital cost
savings are possible. Total Projects Costs (capital costs) for both new bedspaces and potential capacity
improvements are estimated to range between $801.3 million and $1.46 billion, as compared to $1.3 billion to $2.3
billion assuming all new bedspaces without potential capacity improvements.
Table 6-5
2020 Capital Cost Estimate – Potential Capacity & Current Classification System
New Bedspace Type

Total New
Beds

Special Custody Populations
Women - Secure
Women - Pre-release
Subacute Medical & MH*
Men - Pre-release
Subtotal Special Populations
Men -General Custody
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
General Custody - Totals
Total New - Special & General
Potential Capacity Improvements

New Square Feet
Housing

Total Project Cost (TPC)

Facility

Housing

Facility

321
114
1,270
447
2,151

73,734
21,060
412,750
82,649
590,194

147,468
43,828
825,500
171,999
1,188,796

$39,779,577
$7,529,079
$268,287,500
$29,547,045
$345,143,201

0
3,197
169
3,366
5,517

719,390
33,785
753,176
1,343,369

1,438,780
67,571
1,506,351
2,695,147

$397,463,073
$701,405,423
$13,176,308
$21,960,514
$410,639,382
$723,365,938
$755,782,583 $1,367,174,062

Total Beds

New Square Feet
Housing
Facility

$70,932,258
$12,819,783
$509,746,250
$50,309,833
$643,808,124

Total Project Cost (TPC)
Housing
Facility

Women - Secure
Men - Pre-release
Subtotal Special Populations
Men -General Custody
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
General Custody - Totals
Total Potential Capacity Beds

136
374
510

$1,360,000
$3,740,000
$5,100,000

$2,720,000
$7,480,000
$10,200,000

381
3,460
198
4,040
4,550

$3,813,678
$34,601,877
$1,980,000
$40,395,556
$45,495,556

$7,627,357
$69,203,754
$3,960,000
$80,791,111
$90,991,111

TOTAL New & Potential Cap.

10,067

1,343,369

2,695,147

$801,278,138 $1,458,165,173

Notes: * Subacute Medical & MH Beds assumed to be all new beds - some staff would be provided by Medical & MH Vendors; Sheriff bedspaces included in
Medium Custody; 45 surplus Pre-release beds in Central Region- deducted from Potential Capacity Beds improvements; Potential Capacity Improvements
include toilet fixtures - assumed $10,000-$20,000 per bed; excludes fire suppression system req'd @ MCI Shirley Minimum

- 190 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Implementation Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Chapter 6

Although some operating costs associated with providing more bedspaces within the envelopes of existing facilities
will increase, other costs associated with the facility such as heat and electricity would not necessarily increase.
However, since the efficiency of a facility has a significant impact on the staffing levels as well as the energy costs, it
is likely that many of the older facilities will be less efficient in energy consumption and staffing than new purposebuilt facilities. Therefore, at this level of planning, annual operating costs associated with new bedspaces and
potential capacity bedspaces are assumed to result in similar estimated operating costs.
Potential Capacity with the Proposed Classification System
Utilizing the Potential Capacity and with the proposed classification system, Table 6-6 illustrates the range of capital
costs (expressed in today‟s dollars) to meet the projected 2020 bedspace needs.
As previously stated, by implementing potential capacity improvements, the maximum standards-based bedspace
capacity can be achieved in the existing facilities, reducing the number of new bedspaces required. Since these
improvements are considerably less expensive, significant capital cost savings are possible.
As Table 6-6 illustrates, Total Projects Costs (capital costs) for both new bedspaces and potential capacity
improvements are estimated to range between $754 million and $1.37 billion, compared to $1.2 billion to $2.14 billion
assuming all new bedspaces without potential capacity improvements.
Table 6-6
2020 Capital Cost Estimate – Potential Capacity & Proposed Classification System
New Bedspace Type

Total New
Beds

Special Custody Populations
Women - Secure
Women - Pre-release
Subacute Medical & MH*
Men - Pre-release
Subtotal Special Populations
Men -General Custody
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
General Custody - Totals
Total - Special & General
Potential Capacity Improvements

319
151
1,270
1,861
3,601
0
2,174
0
2,174
5,775
Total Beds

New Square Feet
Housing

Total Project Cost (TPC)

Facility

Housing

Facility

73,341
27,937
412,750
344,331
858,359

146,682
58,139
825,500
716,580
1,746,901

$39,567,567
$9,987,388
$268,287,500
$123,098,233
$440,940,688

$70,554,215
$17,005,553
$509,746,250
$209,599,694
$806,905,712

489,180

978,359

$270,271,755

$476,950,155

489,180
1,347,538

978,359
2,725,260

New Square Feet
Housing

$270,271,755
$476,950,155
$711,212,442 $1,283,855,867
Total Project Cost (TPC)

Facility

Housing

Facility

Women - Secure
Men - Pre-release
Subtotal Special Populations
Men -General Custody
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
General Custody - Totals
Total Potential Capacity Beds

98
419
517

$980,000
$4,190,000
$5,170,000

$1,960,000
$8,380,000
$10,340,000

43
3,246
483
3,772
4,289

$429,501
$32,462,504
$4,832,927
$37,724,932
$42,894,932

$859,003
$64,925,007
$9,665,854
$75,449,864
$85,789,864

TOTAL New & Potential Cap.

10,065

1,347,538

2,725,260

$754,107,374 $1,369,645,731

Notes: * Subacute Medical & MH Beds assumed to be all new beds - some staff would be provided by Medical & MH Vendors; Sheriff bedspaces included in
Medium Custody; 267 surplus General Custody beds- deducted from Potential Capacity Beds improvements; Potential Capacity Improvements include toilet

- 191 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Implementation Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Chapter 6

Because the proposed classification system assumes a greater number of DOC inmates in less costly minimum and
pre-release custody bedspaces, this scenario illustrates the financial benefit of a more aggressive reclassification
system. Since staffing costs are the largest contributor to operating costs, the primary means to reduce these costs is
to reduce the number of staff required. As lower custody bedspaces typically have lower staffing costs and lower
staff-to-inmate ratios, a more aggressive, less risk-averse classification system can provide the opportunity to
significantly lower operating costs.
Should legislative reforms reduce mandatory minimum sentences, additional savings could be realized in capital
costs and annual operating costs, in addition to reducing recidivism and the incarcerated population.
Existing Facility Improvements
Existing facility improvements, excluding potential capacity improvements included in the Tables 6-5 and 6-6, are
discussed in this section. Determining the costs associated with deferred maintenance (the backlog of repairs,
replacement, and upgrades resulting from underfunding or neglect) in the Corrections System is not a straightforward
process. Chapter 2 and Appendices A and B outline DOC and Sheriff facilities‟ needed improvements, but is not a
guide for specific near-term projects.
An annual budget for facilities maintenance and upgrades at 2% - 4% of replacement value is not uncommon.
Although not all Sheriff facilities have been assigned replacement values in the CAMIS system (Bristol, Plymouth,
Hampden‟s Chicopee site, Dukes and Norfolk are not valued), the total replacement cost in CAMIS for those facilities
included comes to $4.1 billion dollars. At 2% - 4%, annual maintenance budgets would range between $82 million to
$164 million. However, these budgets do not account for the backlog of deferred maintenance from previous cycles.
As a result of difficult budget cycles, varying priorities, and competency of maintenance staff, deferred maintenance
costs grow and are not always consistently or thoroughly documented. Although facility maintenance requests are
submitted annually to DCAM, these requests may not be prioritized in a manner consistent with the larger goals of
the Corrections System and may not include all necessary preventive maintenance or code compliance repairs.
Based on data extracted from DCAM‟s CAMIS database, the total capital need for Sheriff and DOC facilities in the
system as of December 2010 totals $538 million ($509 million for DOC including modular replacements and $29
million for Sheriffs). This data includes improvements requested by Sheriffs and the DOC and/or identified by DCAM
Facilities Maintenance and Management Division‟s staff or their consultants. This $35 million cannot be considered
all inclusive as many identified potential projects have not been assigned costs and many that have been assigned
costs are dated back as far as 2000. Additionally many Sheriffs are new to CAMIS and have just begun in 2010 to
enter their requests into the system. And in fact, based on Site Reports, it appears that many deferred maintenance
requests have not been entered into CAMIS and are therefore not included in this figure. As these costs in the
database are not all inclusive, the almost $538 million can be viewed as a minimum amount needed for capital
improvements beyond the scope of routine operating budgets.
Summary of 2020 Cost Implications
The capital costs required to meet the 2020 bedspace need and address current overcrowding range from $754
million to 2.3 billion in 2009 dollars without escalation. Identified capital improvements to existing facilities are
expected to exceed the $538 million in the CAMIS system. The total anticipated capital costs to address new
bedspace needs and existing facility improvements is estimated at over $1.3 billion minimum even if the most cost- 192 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Implementation Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Chapter 6

effective scenarios are possible. This will far exceed the funding resources of $550 million available in the near future
as authorized in Chapter 304 of the Acts of 2008. The anticipated increase in annual operating costs associated with
these new beds is estimated at as much as $120 million.
The capital investment of an estimated a minimum $1.5 billion (in today‟s dollars) is required to meet the 2020
projected bedspace need, not including facility repairs and repairs not specifically targeted towards capacity. With
funding resources limited moving forward, every initiative should be considered to enable the Commonwealth to meet
this obligation in the most cost-effective and efficient manner possible. As outlined in this report, regionalization of
some specialized facilities to enable more effective and cost-efficient treatment of specialized populations and the
implementation of bedspaces to promote reclassification are key components to this end.
Creating a more efficient and cost-effective system requires initiatives far beyond „brick and mortar‟ projects. These
initiatives should include such measures as legislative reforms that reconsider mandatory minimum sentences, pretrial diversion programs, more aggressive classification to support the „stepping down‟ of DOC inmates into minimum
and pre-releases facilities, governance structures to support more flexibility, the use of electronic monitoring devices,
expansion of technology, and centralized support services such as transportation. Significant effort must be
expended towards reducing the need for incarceration for those inmates that are candidates for community
supervision and compassionate release.
With an estimated $2.5 billion of capital investments for new bedspaces and existing facility improvements (not
including escalation) identified, in addition to a potential increase in annual operating costs of as much as $120
million, it should be clear that the current system is unsustainable. Consolidation, reorganization, and collaboration by
stakeholders will be critical to enable the Commonwealth to meet its obligation moving forward.

PHASE 1 CAPITAL PLAN
With the current authorization of $550M (from Chapter 304 of the Acts of 2008) available to address the capital needs
of the system, the CMP proposes a first phase of new projects and improvements focused on the CMP goals that
include: 1) Alleviate crowding; 2) Reduce recidivism; 3) Maximize existing resources; 4) Create a more integrated,
efficient and cost-effective system.
The plan includes a strategic increase in specialized and general custody bedspaces, potential capacity
improvements to gain existing bedspaces and a budget to address some upgrades to existing facilities. Parallel to the
efforts to construct new bedspaces, significant attention should be given to the removal of the approximately 1,000
federal inmates from the Sheriff‟s facilities. Efforts to reassign the approximately 672 civil commitments projected for
2020 to other State agencies or non-profit treatment centers should also be implemented.
Phase 1 – New Bedspaces
As previously outlined, Phase 1 new bedspaces focus on the Special Custody populations. Because these types of
bedspaces are currently lacking in the system, these special populations are either housed within the general
custody population creating inefficiencies, or they are housed in facilities not appropriate to their needs. By providing
these specialized bedspaces, general custody bedspaces can be vacated to begin to alleviate crowding.

- 193 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Implementation Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Chapter 6

Table 6-7 summarizes the Recommended Phase 1 New Bedspaces by type and region. As previously stated, these
bed counts assume all existing CMP Baseline Capacity Beds remain as currently purposed. Actual beds to be built
in each region and at each facility will be examined more closely to consider site capacity, operational efficiencies,
and bedspace use in the region.
Table 6-7 Recommended Phase 1 New Bedspaces
CMP Phase 1 - Recommended New Beds
Women Beds

Region

Pre-release

Northeast Region
Eastern MA Women's Correctional*
Women Pre-release Beds
Male Pre-release
Central Region
MCI Framingham*
New Medical / Mental Health Facility
Male Pre-release - location TBD
Women Pre-release Beds
Multi-jurisdictional General Custody-TBD
Southeast Region
Male Pre-release -locations TBD
West Region
Western MA Women's Correctional
Male Pre-release -Hampshire
Totals

General
225
225

Medical /
MH

0
Study

Male Beds
Pre-release
200

500

General

200
100

500

500
100
500
0

0

100
100

0

200
200
100

325

500

100
600

500

Total
425
225
0
200
1,100
0
500
100
0
500
200
200
200
100
100
1,925

Notes: Beds counts are preliminary and must be assessed in Building Studies; All new women bedspaces may not be feasible at Suffolk HOC site. Additonal
study of MCI Framingham recommended.

Utilizing the Cost Model in Table 6-1, capital costs for the Phase 1 Bedspaces were estimated and summarized in
Table 6-8 below.
Table 6-8 Capital Cost Estimate – Phase 1 New Bedspaces
New Bedspace Type

Total New
Beds

Special Custody Populations
Women - Secure
Subacute Medical & MH
Men - Pre-release
Subtotal Special Populations
Men- General Custody - Medium
Total New Beds

325
500
600
1,425
500
1,925

New Square Feet
Housing

74,750
162,500
111,000
348,250
112,500
460,750

Total Project Cost (TPC)

Facility

149,500
325,000
231,000
705,500
225,000
930,500

Housing

$40,327,625
$105,625,000
$39,682,500
$185,635,125
$62,156,250
$247,791,375

Facility

$71,909,500
$200,687,500
$67,567,500
$340,164,500
$109,687,500
$449,852,000

The 1,925 Phase 1 New Bedspaces have estimated capital costs in the range of $248 million to $450. For purposes
of the CMP, approx. $350 million is estimated to be needed for the Phase 1 new bedspaces.
Women Bedspaces - $40 million to $72 million
With 3 existing facilities with successful women‟s programs in place, the CMP recommends expanding these existing
programs into regional women‟s centers. Since programs exist and the new bedspaces will be provided in additions
to the existing facilities, the capital costs would tend on the lower end of the range. An addition to the existing
Western MA Regional Women‟s Correctional Center in Chicopee is recommended. An Eastern Regional Women‟s
Correctional Center is also recommended to be housed at the Suffolk House of Corrections however the site has
limited capacity for expansion and requires further study. Additional study is also required at MCI Framingham to
- 194 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Implementation Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Chapter 6

determine the site‟s capacity and feasibility of adding new bedspaces to reduce overcrowding and address needs for
the Central Region as well as the East Region. These two studies should identify the best approach to providing the
needed capacity for the East Region.
Sub-acute Medical and Mental Health Bedspaces - $106 million to $200 million
Assuming a maximum size of 500 beds, one new dual function medical and mental health facility is recommended for
Phase 1. This category of inmate is not a factor of the usual growth predictors and is increasing at every level of
incarceration. Prior to launching a new building study, a more in-depth and focused Needs Assessment Study is
required to assess acuity levels and determine the most appropriate facilities to deliver medical and mental health
care services within the Corrections System.
Since the bulk of the DOC inmate population are in facilities in the Central and Northeast regions and proximity to
medical schools for staff is important, the CMP recommends that priority be given to locating the new medical facility
in the Central and/or Northeast Regions.
While the estimated TPC for a 500-bed specialized health care facility is $200.7 million, the annual cost for operation
for these types of facilities is expected to be much higher than general custody institutions due largely to the higher
staffing ratios and the medical supplies and equipment costs. Although some of these staffing costs will be absorbed
as part of medical and mental health care contracts, security would be provided by the DOC and some State health
care staff would likely be required, possibly through agreements with DPH and DMH.
Pre-Release/Reentry Bedspaces - $40 million to $68 million
Purpose-built pre-release/reentry facilities should contain or have access to support space for a range of release
preparation activities. The types of living areas should be varied to provide an inmate with a progression of
environments in preparation for independent living. The CMP recommends that these facilities be within community
centers where possible to provide access to jobs, housing and public transportation.
The programs and services provided through pre-release and reentry are the foundation for changing the current rate
of re-offending. While other components of the CMP require a higher level of capital investment, the greatest return
on investment will likely be derived from the pre-release/reentry programs. Every effort should be made to support
this initiative and as the implementation of the CMP progresses, if at all possible, an even higher level of investment
should be made in this community-based initiative. Leasing of pre-release facilities through operating budget
expenditures in addition to facilities constructed on State property should be considered.
General Custody Bedspaces - $62 million to $110 million
In order to build flexibility into the system, the CMP recommends building a new multi-jurisdictional general custody
facility in the Central Region. Although governance issues must be addressed, the 500 multi-jurisdictional bedspaces
proposed for the Central Region would reduce crowding in several counties by providing space to transfer various
populations and create a „relief valve‟ for the system as a whole. By doing so, additional space could be made available in
selected counties to accommodate additional male pretrial inmates closer to local courts, including 52A‟s.
Phase 1 – Potential Capacity Improvements and Existing Conditions Upgrades
The remaining $200 million in the authorization of $550M (from Chapter 304 of the Acts of 2008) is recommended for
potential capacity improvements, existing conditions upgrades and contingency for potential scope revisions
associated with Phase 1 New Beds.

- 195 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Implementation Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Chapter 6

As illustrated in Tables 6-5 and 6-6, potential capacity improvements are estimated to range between $43 million and
$91 million, depending on the degree of reclassification implemented. As previously outlined, approximately $538
million of identified deferred maintenance items and upgrades are listed in DCAM‟s CAMIS database. Based on
these figures, it is clear that careful assessment and prioritization is needed to determine the best use of the $200
million allocation. In Chapter 2, criteria for this prioritization are outlined.

PHASE 1 INITIAL STEPS
The CMP has focused on the capital expenditure necessary to meet the projected 2020 bedspace needs in the
Commonwealth. Although a capital plan, the CMP is based on the assumption that a series of steps will be
undertaken with the goal of investing wisely in a combination of new construction, repairs and upgrades, in addition
to advancing policy and operational changes to produce a more effective, efficient, flexible and integrated
correctional system in the Commonwealth. To this end, the following steps are proposed to be undertaken as an
integral part of the CMP.
1. Establish a bedspace accounting system using an analytically-based approach to reassess current Design
and Rated Capacities to enable the creation of a more consistent and compliant inventory from which to
evaluate overcrowding more effectively.
2. Begin stakeholder discussions on implementing a multi-jurisdictional governance structure for new multijurisdictional facilities and for governance input on the expansion of existing women‟s facilities into regional
centers.
3. Appoint a CMP Implementation Committee to monitor progress in achieving the recommendations of the
Corrections Master Plan and provide a progress report at critical intervals.
4. In coordination with the MaSSNet initiative, develop a comprehensive program that expands technology to
improve pre-arraignment, video conferencing, tele-medicine, transportation, classification, records-keeping
and other services including better coordination between criminal justice agencies.
5. Implement a shared transportation database for scheduling and tracking trips to enable a possible reduction
on trips by adjacent facilities and lay the foundation for a future comprehensive transportation study.
6. Investigate a centralized system for purchasing of vehicles and other common items to gain cost savings for
all Sheriffs and the DOC.
7. Implement a Needs Assessment Study that identifies the acuity levels and medical and mental health care
delivery options for the Corrections System.
8. Begin discussions focused on re-assigning civilly committed persons to appropriate Commonwealth
agencies.
9. Begin operating budget realignment to enable the removal of Federal inmates from Sheriff facilities.
10. Implement legislative and policy reforms such as sentencing reform, classification changes, and alternatives
to incarceration that could reduce the need for an additional 4,000 bedspaces and the expenditure of an
additional $1.5 billion by 2020.
Essentially, a Strategic Master Plan defines a direction for the future, based on the goals and criteria defined today.
Any plan must be constantly monitored and periodically updated to reflect ever evolving conditions and policies that
- 196 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Implementation Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Chapter 6

will alter priorities. The CMP proposes means to improve existing conditions, but does not reflect an absolute solution
to the complex needs of the correctional system. Ongoing involvement of all stakeholders is required to implement
the direction proposed and to continually improve and inform the process to create a more integrated, efficient and
cost-effective Corrections System in 2020 and beyond.

- 197 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Implementation Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Chapter 6

- 198 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

The Implementation Plan - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan
The Final Report

Appendix A
Sheriff Department
Existing Facility Briefs

Appendix A - Sheriff Dept. Existing Facility Briefs

- 199 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

HOUSING CAPACITY TABLE LEGEND
Capacity Criteria
Sleeping Space: ACA Standard
Single @ 35 Unencumbered SF
Double @ 50 Unencumbered SF or 70 SF Total
Dorm @ 25 SF per inmate
Capacity Criteria
Plumbing Fixtures: MA Plumbing Code
Sinks @ 1 per 6 inmates
Showers @ 1 per 8 inmates
Toilets @ 1per 8 Males / 1 per 6 Females

PLUMBING FIXTURES

DAYROOM SPACE

(ACA Standard)

(Mass Plumbing Code)

(ACA Standard)

MAX No. of INMATES

8
16
16
8

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA

4
16
16
4

Room

x

50

120

3

25

75

6

7

8

48

NA

NA

48

Room

x

54

120

3

25

75

6

7

8

48

NA

NA

48

Double B1
Double B2

175

100

** = or Shower Controls
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

DAYROOM SF

2
6
6
2

(35SF per Inmate)

MAX No. of INMATES

1
3
3
1

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

TOILETS

1
2
2
1

(1:8 Inmates)

SHOWERS

4
46
46
4

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2)

2
23
23
2

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

2
2
2
2

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

85
70
70
85

GENERAL POPULATION

2
23
44
2

TYPE
Room
Room
Room
Room

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

x
x
x
x

UNIT
HC D1
Single D1
Single D2
HC D2

GENERAL POPULATION

SINKS

F

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

E

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

D

INMATES PER ROOM

C

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

B

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

(Temp. Housing)

A

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS
Add: 3 Sinks, 2 Showers **
Add: 3 Sinks, 2 Showers **
Add: 4 Sinks, 3 Showers **, 2
Toilets
Add: 4 Sinks, 3 Showers **, 2
Toilets

136

Red numbers
indicate limiting criteria that yields the
CMP Baseline Capacity
for the housing unit – See pg 43 for
more information

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 200 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

189

150

4
40
40
4
75
75
238

Potential Capacity - possible increase
in bedspaces with improvements; if no
improvements were identified, Potential
Capacity = CMP Baseline Capacity –
See pg.44 for more information

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

SLEEPING SPACE

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

WOMEN

Capacity Criteria
Dayroom Space: ACA Standard
35 SF per inmate

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

MEN

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

Current Beds:
Number of beds identified
during 2009 Site Visit excluding
non-traditional / temporary
beds; Current bed count varys
to accommodate ADP

Design Capacity
See pg.39 for more
information

Barnstable County Correctional Facility
Address:
Year Opened:
Security Levels:

Sq. Footage:

6000 Sheriff's Place
Bourne, MA
2004
Minimum,
Maximum

Medium,

156,319 GSF

Buildings
1. Main Building
1A Housing Unit #1
1B Housing Unit #1
1C Housing Unit #1
1D Housing Unit #1
1E Intake Trans/Release
1F Health
1G Visitation
1H Administration
1I Control
1J Staff Support Training
1K Central Services
1L Food Services
1M Vocational Ed.
1N Laundry
1O Maintenance/Warehouse
2. Grounds
Maintenance/Storage

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 201 -

42,419 gsf / CAMIS ID 763SDC0400
22,838 gsf / CAMIS ID 63SDC0401
28,116 gsf / CAMIS ID 763SDC0402
16,644 gsf / CAMIS ID 763SDC0403

26,623 gsf / CAMIS ID 763SDC0404

35,543 gsf / CAMIS ID 763SDC0405

780 gsf / CAMIS ID 763SDC0406

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Barnstable County Correctional Facility
Description:
 The current Barnstable County Correctional Facility is a concrete and steel frame structure with pre-cast cell housing units, located on a 29 acre
parcel. Exterior finish is brick masonry and concrete.
 This facility replaced the old 1934 facility on Main St, Barnstable at the back of the Massachusetts Trial Court Complex which is now vacant.
 Inmate housing is organized around 12 housing pods. Pod sizes vary from 12 cells to 36 cells. There are a total of 300 cells of 80 square feet, each
capable of holding 2 beds.
 Security systems are adequate and in good working condition.
 The central service core which includes food preparation and laundry was built to accommodate up to 700 inmates. The space allocated for kitchen
facilities is adequate and in excellent physical condition. Food is prepared on-site by a vendor and delivered to housing units. Central laundry is in
good condition and is supplemented by laundry services in the female units.
 There are central classrooms for academic programs. The facility operates a print shop and a woodworking shop for vocational education. These
areas are in excellent condition.
 The Central Library is accessible only to female inmates, while carts are used to delver books to male inmate units.
 Medical services are provided by in-house staff. While there is no infirmary, there are two negative pressure cells. There are healthcare triage rooms
in each housing area. The facility is wired for tele-medicine but it is not used.
 Recreation decks are on all housing units. There is a well-equipped weight room but no central gym.
 There is a warehouse/storage facility that is used for the storage of records and supplies.
 There are staff training facilities on site that offer training to other agencies.
 The facility has adequate parking for its current size, although during peak shift changes parking is reported to be tight.
 The site has adequate room for expansion.
Major Issues:
 The facility has experienced significant settlement of the floor slab in many areas which has affected the adjustment and operation of doors, etc.
Other systems are likely to be affected if the settlement occurs long-term.
 The exterior walls of the housing units show signs of significant structural cracks. Cell windows were improperly installed and/or defective.
Replacement units have been provided by the manufacturer and are being installed by facility staff.
 Auger monster needs a trap prior to the sewer system; experiencing debris flowing into the military sewer system.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Pre-release Center – 72-beds; pre-release inmates are held with general population
 Regional Lock-up – 50 beds
 Vehicle Maintenance Facility

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 202 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Barnstable County Correctional Facility
CAMIS Requested Projects:
FY 08 -- FY11 Deferred Maintenance Requests for Correction and Sherriffs Facilities
Site

Site Name

Building Name

Project Number

J000108917

INSTALL EXHAUST VENT IN POD C, IN DAY-ROOM SHOWER
INSTALL TWO 8' VICTAULIC "Y" STRAINERS ON AC COOLING
TOWERS

PhaseDescription
INSTALL EXHAUST VENT IN POD C, IN DAY-ROOM
SHOWER
INSTALL TWO 8' VICTAULIC "Y" STRAINERS ON AC
COOLING TOWERS

J000110402

MODIFICATION OF RTU CONTROLS

RTU CONTROLS MODIFICATIONS

J000110470

GEN 3 REPLACEMENTS

GEN 3 REPLACEMENTS

J000110483

UPGRADE SECURITY SYSTEM

UPGRADE SECURITY SYSTEM

FOOD PASSES

FOOD PASSES

BARNSTABLE COUNTY CORR. FACILITY

HOUSE 2 - PODS D,E,F,G,H
J000110489
HOUSE 3 - PODS J,K,L,M - BLDG.
NO.1
J000110402

MODIFICATION OF RTU CONTROLS

MODIFICATION OF RTU CONTROLS

BARNSTABLE COUNTY CORR. FACILITY

SERVICES BLDG. NO. 7

J000111282

REPAIR KITCHEN FLOOR

REPAIR KITCHEN FLOOR

BARNSTABLE COUNTY CORR. FACILITY

GRINDER SHED

J000111285

MODIFY AUGER

REPAIR AUGER

BSD00

BARNSTABLE COUNTY CORR. FACILITY

HOUSE 1 - PODS A,B,C

J000108914

BSD00

BARNSTABLE COUNTY CORR. FACILITY

SERVICES

BSD00

BARNSTABLE COUNTY CORR. FACILITY

HOUSE 3 - PODS J,K,L,M

BSD00

BARNSTABLE COUNTY CORR. FACILITY

BSD00

BARNSTABLE COUNTY CORR. FACILITY

HOUSE 2 - PODS D,E,F,G,H
ADMINISTRATION / VISIT /
PROGRAMS

BSD00

BARNSTABLE COUNTY CORR. FACILITY

SDC00
SDC00
SDC00

Project Description

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 203 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Est Cost

Status

12,500 Requested
12,000 Requested
19,359 Requested
9,146 Requested
55,000 Requested
5,612 Requested
91,000 Requested
8,280 Requested
35,000 Requested
$247,897

Barnstable County Correctional Facility
Housing Capacity:
BARNSTABLE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - BOURNE
(Custody Level: Maximum/Medium/Minimum)
(Date Built: 2004)

36
16
32
12
24

48
32
48
16
32

2,520
1,120
2,240
630
1,680

72
32
64
18
48

48
32
48
16
32

12
24
24
72
72
72
72

80
80
80
80
80
80
80

2
2
2
2
2
2
2

12
12
12
36
36
36
36

24
24
24
72
72
72
72

12
12
13
37
37
37
37

1
2
2
6
6
6
6

12
12
12
36
36
36
36

8
16
16
48
48
48
48

420
420
620
2,520
2,520
2,520
2,520

12
12
18
72
72
72
72

8
12
16
48
48
48
48

588

300

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS
Add: 3 Showers **

Maximum Segregation
Add: 2 Showers **
Women
Women

Add: 2 Showers **

Isolation / Normally Single Bunked
Admin Segregation
Protective Custody
Medium Custody
Minimum Custody

Add: 1 Shower **

Add: 3 Showers **
Add: 3 Showers **
Add: 3 Showers **
Add: 3 Showers **

404

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 204 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

402

300

72
32
64
16
48
12
12
16
72
72
72
72
560

** = or Shower Controls
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

6
4
6
2
4

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

37
17
33
13
24

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

MAX No. of INMATES

72
32
64
24
48

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

DAYROOM SF

36
16
32
12
24

(35SF per Inmate)

MAX No. of INMATES

2
2
2
2
2

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

TOILETS

80
80
80
80
80

(1:8 Inmates)

SHOWERS

72
32
64
24
48

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

SINKS

F

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

E

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

D

INMATES PER ROOM

x
x
x
x
x
x
x

(ACA Standard)

C

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

x
x

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

x
x
x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

(Temp. Housing)

Pod F (2F)
Pod G (2G)
Pod H (2H)
Pod J (3J)
Pod K (3K)
Pod L (3L)
Pod M (3M)
Intake

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Pod A (1A)
Pod B (1B)
Pod C (1C)
Pod D (2D)
Pod E (2E)

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

(1:6 Inmates)

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

Berkshire County Jail and House of Correction
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:

Sq. Footage:

467 Cheshire Road
Pittsfield, MA
2001
Minimum,
Maximum

Medium,

166,375 GSF

Buildings
1. Main Bldg.
1A Housing
1B Gymnasium
1C Health/Voc.
Ed./Library
1D Food Service
1E Maintenance
1F Administration
1G Intake
2. Greenhouse
3. Switch Gear
4. Warehouse
5. Storage

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 205 -

160,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 111SDBPB03

--6,375 gsf / CAMIS ID 111SDBPB01

--

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Berkshire County Jail and House of Correction
Description:
 The Berkshire County Jail and HOC is a steel frame with concrete block structure, occupying a 25 acre site containing some wetland area subject to
restriction. It replaced a brick structure constructed in 1870 which is located in downtown Pittsfield.
 Inmate housing is located in nine housing units consisting of 292 precast concrete cells, each 82 square feet of area. The cells have two beds except
the accessible cells which are single bunked. Housing units are in very good condition. Housing units are organized around centralized shared
functions and program spaces.
 The Security system is in generally good condition although spare parts are becoming difficult to obtain. The fiber-optics camera system has limited
recording capacity, limiting expansion to other areas.
 The medical healthcare area originally had 4 cells which are not active. A central triage w/ exam room and dental room are currently used and are in
good condition.
 The kitchen and laundry facilities are adequately sized and in good condition with the exception of some of the equipment.
 The facility has a library and classrooms which are centrally located and in excellent condition.
 The facility includes a gymnasium.
 There is a warehouse outside the secure perimeter. It is adequate in size and in good condition.
 The facility has adequate parking for 260 vehicles.
Major Issues:
 The 1870 Berkshire County Jail & HOC in downtown Pittsfield no longer houses inmates. It is a three story brick structure with a deteriorating roof,
non-insulated walls and windows, an inadequate heating system, inadequate fire suppression systems and multiple access issues. The Sheriffs
Department uses the facility to support a program for juveniles and houses some administrative offices. A large percentage of the facility is not
occupied or is under-utilized. It is on a restricted 4.5 acre site adjacent to an elementary school. Lease space would be a more cost effective option to
house these functions.
 The facility does not have a separate pre-release facility which creates security issues.
 Additional razor wire at Recreation Decks used by higher security inmates is needed.
 Emergency exit doors in housing pods must be replaced due to rust.
 Network infrastructure upgrade is needed.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Pre-release Center
 Regional Lockup / Intake Area

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 206 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Berkshire County Jail and House of Correction
CAMIS Requested Projects:
FY 08 -- FY11 Deferred Maintenance Requests for Correction and Sherriffs Facilities

SDB00

Site

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT BERKSHIRE NEW

Site Name

MAIN JAIL

Building Name

J000108569

Project Number

CONCRETE CURBING REPLACEMENT 467 CHESHIRE

Project Description

PhaseDescription
REPLACE ALL CONTRETE CURBING WITH GRANITE
CURBING

SDB00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT BERKSHIRE NEW

MAIN JAIL

J000108571

SDB00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT -BERKSHIRE NEW

MAIN JAIL

J000109929

SDB00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT -BERKSHIRE NEW

MAIN JAIL

J000109931

NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADE
ADD 2 ROWS OF RAZOR WIRE TO RECREATIONAL DECKS B &
C
REPLACE ALL EMERGENCY EXIT DOORS IN THE HOUSING
PODS PER D.O.C.

NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADE
ADD 2 ROWS OF RAZOR RIBBON TO RECREATIONAL
DECKS B & C
REPLACE EMERGENCY EXIT DOORS HOUSING PODS
PER D.O.C.

SDB00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT -BERKSHIRE NEW

MAIN JAIL

J000111284

REPLACE GYM FLOOR

INSTALL NEW GYM FLOOR

Est Cost

Status

91,800 Requested
128,000 Requested
15,000 Requested
53,550 Requested
60,000 Requested

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS

$348,350

Housing Capacity:
BERKSHIRE COUNTY JAIL AND HOC - PITTSFIELD
(Custody Level: Maximum/Medium/Minimum)
(Date Built: 2001)

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
1
2

36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
4
4

(35SF per Inmate)

E

MAX No. of INMATES

36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
4
4

D

DAYROOM SF

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

TOILETS

(1:8 Inmates)

72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
8

SHOWERS

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
4

(1:6 Inmates)

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2*
2

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82

C

64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
8

2,620
2,620
2,620
2,620
2,620
2,620
2,620
2,620
168

75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
4

292

F

64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
4
(4)

COMMENTS
Maximum Custody

IMPROVEMENTS
Add: 1 Shower **
Add: 1 Shower **
Add: 1 Shower **
Add: 1 Shower **
Add: 1 Shower **
Add: 1 Shower **
Add: 1 Shower **
Add: 1 Shower **

Inactive Health Services
Not In Count

516

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 207 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

349

288

72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
4
(4)
580

* = 1 HCP Cell
** = or Shower Controls
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

572

INMATES PER ROOM

71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
4
(4)

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

x
x
x
x

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

x
x
x
x
x
x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

GENERAL POPULATION

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Pod A
Pod B
Pod C
Pod D
Pod E
Pod F
Pod G
Pod H
Pod J
Booking

B

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

(ACA Standard)

A

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

SLEEPING SPACE

MAX No. of INMATES

WOMEN

SINKS

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 208 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Bristol County Jail and House of Correction
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:

Sq. Footage:

400 Faunce Corner Road
N. Dartmouth, MA 02747
1990
Minimum, Medium & Maximum

261,000 gsf

Buildings
1. Bristol HOC
2. Women‟s Center
3. Modular Housing Unit
4. Guard Tower
5. Maintenance Building
6. K-9 Training Area
7. ICE Federal

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 209 -

165,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 669BSD0801
159,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 669BSD0802
56,600 gsf / CAMIS ID 669BSD0806

-7,250 gsf / CAMIS ID 669BSD0803
-16,254 gsf / CAMIS ID 669BSD0805

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Bristol County Jail and House of Correction – North Dartmouth
Description:
 The Bristol County Jail and House of Correction Main Building is a steel frame with split-face and concrete block structure. While the facility is on a
150 acre site, there are significant wetland environmental restrictions that limit further expansion or development of new facilities.
 The male dorm beds (476 of the 1,090 beds) represent 44% of the total male beds which is a high percentage for this type of correctional facility.
 The Main Building contains 307 cells with 74 square feet of area. Each cell is double bunked. The gym has been converted to a 76 person dorm.
 The Modular Housing Unit contains four dorm housing units with 13 cells housing 6 inmates each. The building‟s structure is a precast concrete plank
and wall system with metal stud and gypsum wall board infill. This building was originally leased with the contractor responsible for maintaining the
building. The contractor‟s financial difficulties contributed to minimal maintenance on the facility. The State now owns this facility.
 The Women‟s Center was originally the men‟s pre-release facility. It contains 48 cells with 74 square feet of area.
 The Health Services Unit (HSU) in the Main Building houses the medical and mental health services for the entire facility. It can provide services for
as many as 28, serving both male and female inmates with no separation. There is a shortage of mental health cells and plumbing fixtures. There are
solid doors that should be replaced.
 Administrative areas for the Sheriff and the Superintendant are not co-located. A large conference/training room addition was placed adjacent to the
Sheriff‟s office area. It is wood frame construction attached directly to a non-combustible rated structure, which is not code compliant.
 Food service is provided in a centralized kitchen and dining area which is marginally adequate for the present population. Storage is needed. The
kitchen in the modular building is inactive.
 Central laundry is located in the Main Building. Separate washers and dryers are located in the Women‟s Facility and the Modular facility.
 The library in the Main Building has been converted to a roll call room. Three classrooms are used for educational programs and are in good
condition. The classroom in the Women‟s Center has been converted to a dorm with classes held in the dining area.
 Vocational classes are limited and are held in the maintenance area.
 The ICE Building was constructed without DCAM authorization using federal funds and is under contract to house federal detainees.
 The Automotive Maintenance/Canteen Building is a metal “Butler type” building in good condition.
 There is limited program space and the indoor recreation space was converted to a temporary dorm.
Major Issues:
 There is currently no pre-release facility for Bristol County.
 Insufficient showers in the housing units limit the code compliant occupancy levels significantly below the current number of beds.
 The Women‟s Center has numerous significant accessibility issues such as no accessible entrance/egress or accessible showers.
 Modular facility has HVAC and ventilation problems in addition to major renovations needed in the toilet/shower rooms..
 Roofs are approaching end of useful life.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Warehouse for storage
 Modular Housing Unit Repairs
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 210 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Bristol County Jail and House of Correction – North Dartmouth
CAMIS Requested Projects:
FY 08 -- FY11 Deferred Maintenance Requests for Correction and Sherriffs Facilities
Site
CBR00

Site Name
BRISTOL CNTY SHERIFF - N. DARTMOUTH

Building Name
BRISTOL COUNTY HOUSE OF
CORRECTION

Project Number
J000108560

Project Description
HSU - UPGRADE OF TOILET FACILITIES

PhaseDescription
UPGRADE TOILET FACILITIES - HSU
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 211 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Est Cost

Status

47,000 Requested
$47,000

Bristol County Jail and House of Correction – North Dartmouth
Housing Capacity:
BRISTOL COUNTY JAIL AND HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS - NORTH DARTMOUTH
(Custody Level: Maximum/Medium/Minimum)
(Date Built: 1990)

DAYROOM SF

MAX No. of INMATES

41
41
9
9

56
56
64
64

3,046
3,046
5,072
5,072

87
87
145
145

56
56
64
64

x
x
x

76
66
64
16
38
32
16
16
--99
99
99
99
24
46
28
36
1210

4500
74
74
74
74
74
74
74

75
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
33
32
8
16
16
8
16
4/2

75
66
64
16
32
32
16
32

4
33
32
8
4
16
8
16

3
6
6
2
3
3
2
3

6
33
32
8
4
16
8
16

24
48
48
16
24
24
16
24

2,650
1,891
1,891
441
1,097
1,337
503
956

75
54
54
13
31
38
14
27

347
347
347
347
72
72
72
72

6
6
6
6
2
2
2
2

13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
408

78
78
78
78
24
24
24
24

13
13
13
13
3
2
3
2

10
10
10
10
3
3
3
3

10
10
10
10
2
3
2
3

78
78
78
78
18
12
24
12

2,970
2,970
2,970
2,970
359
359
359
359

85
85
85
85
10
10
10
10

24
48
48
13
24
24
16
24
--78
78
78
78
10
10
10
10
813

64
64
128

3000
3000

1
1
2

50
50

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

COMMENTS
Med-Max Custody
Med-Max Custody
Medium Custody
Med-Max Custody

IMPROVEMENTS

Add: 9 Sinks, 7 Showers **, 4 Toilets
Med-Max Custody
Protective Custody
Med-Max Custody
Minimum Custody
Admin Seg/Protective Custody
Maximum Custody
Maximum Custody
Not In Count
Not In Count
Min-Med Custody
Min-Med Custody
Min-Med Custody
Min-Med Custody
Min-Max Custody
Min-Max Custody
Min-Max Custody
Min-Max Custody

76
48
48
13
24
24
16
24
--78
78
78
78
10
10
10
10
865

BRISTOL COUNTY JAIL AND HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS - NORTH DARTMOUTH
("ICE" Building Houses Federal Inmates/Detainees)
(Date Built: 2006)
Dorm
Dorm

x
x

50
50

8
8

6
6

9
9

48
48

1,750
1,750

50
50

48
48
96

Min-Med Custody
Min-Med Custody

Add: 3 Sinks, 2 Showers **
Add: 3 Sinks, 2 Showers **

** = or Shower Controls

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 212 -

1159

360

56
56
64
64

(MC) = Modular/Concrete Building
(NTH) = Non-Traditional Housing
** = or Shower Controls

ICE Bldg - 1A (Dorm)
ICE Bldg - 1B (Dorm)

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

MAX No. of INMATES

7
7
8
8

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

TOILETS

41
41
9
9

(35SF per Inmate)

SHOWERS

82
82
96
96

(1:8 Inmates)

SINKS

41
41
48
48

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

2
2
2
2

(1:6 Inmates)

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

74
74
74
74

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

INMATES PER ROOM

F

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

E

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

D

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

(ACA Standard)

C

82
82
96
96

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

Dorm
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

(Temp. Housing)

(Temp. Housing)

Main Bldg (DHOC) - GC (Gym Dorm) (NTH)
Main Bldg (DHOC) - FA
Main Bldg (DHOC) - FB
Main Bldg (DHOC) - EA (Women Seg)
Main Bldg (DHOC) - EB (ICE)
Main Bldg (DHOC) - EC
Main Bldg (DHOC) - ED
Main Bldg (DHOC) - EE
Main Bldg (DHOC) - HSU (Medical)
Main Bldg (DHOC) - Intake/Transfer/Release
Modulars (DHOC) - 1E (MC)
Modulars (DHOC) - 1W (MC)
Modulars (DHOC) - 2E (MC)
Modulars (DHOC) - 2W (MC)
Womens Center (DWC) - AW-1 (Wing A)
Womens Center (DWC) - AW-2 (Wing B)
Womens Center (DWC) - AW-3 (Wing C)
Womens Center (DWC) - AW-4 (Wing D)

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B

x
x
x
x

GENERAL POPULATION

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

UNIT

GENERAL POPULATION

Main Bldg (DHOC) - HA
Main Bldg (DHOC) - HB
Main Bldg (DHOC) - GA
Main Bldg (DHOC) - GB

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

64
64
128

Bristol County Jail and House of Correction
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:

Sq. Footage:

226 Ash Street
New Bedford, MA
1829
Minimum & Medium

200,832 gsf

Buildings
1. Housing / Administration
2. Administration
3. Intake
4. Laundry/Rec RM/Day RM
5. Dining
6. Kitchen
7. Condemned (Due to Fire)
8. Sallyport

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 213 -

200,832 gsf / CAMIS ID 668BSD0801

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Bristol County Jail and House of Correction - Ash Street, New Bedford
Description:
 The Bristol County Jail-Ash Street Facility in downtown New Bedford was originally opened in 1829. The 1.5 acre brick complex serves as a jail and
regional lock-up facility. The main building contains 212 cells of 48 square feet each. Male and female inmates are housed in adjacent cells with cloth
sheets providing visual separation.
 Medical staff provides triage only. Inmates with medical or mental health issues are transferred to the North Dartmouth facility.
 Program space is minimal.
 There is a single outdoor recreation space for male and female inmates, creating security issues.
 The gymnasium has been converted to a dayroom and laundry facility.
 The building that houses the kitchen and dining hall is outdated and undersized.
 All support spaces are small with limited storage.
 Intake is extremely small and difficult to manage circulation.
 The site is land-locked with no room for expansion. Parking is for staff only.
Major Issues:
 The 1.5 acre urban site is surrounded on three sides by secondary streets immediately adjacent to the 20 foot perimeter walls. The facility also lacks
exterior surveillance cameras. The facility has an ongoing issue with contraband being thrown over the perimeter walls.
 The facility is not access compliant.
 The physical condition of the facility and its equipment is marginal and costly to maintain.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 None.
CAMIS Requested Projects: None.
Housing Capacity:
BRISTOL COUNTY JAIL AND HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS - NEW BEDFORD
(Custody Level: Medium/Minimum)
(Date Built: 1829)
Building #1 - Wing 1 & 2
Building #4 - Dayroom
Building #1 - Health Services
Building #3 - Intake

Cell

x

212

x
x

--212

48

1

212

212

202
1

8
6

202
1

64
6

212

2,597

74

74
--74

74
(not in count)
(not in count)
74

Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 214 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

180

206

Dukes County Jail and House of Correction
Address:

Year Opened:

149 Main Street
Edgartown, MA 02539
1873

Security Levels:

Minimum,
Lockup

Sq. Footage:

9,104 gsf

Medium

&

regional

Buildings
1. Jail/HOC
2. Modular Housing
3. Dorm Housing, Visiting, Central
Control Modular Bldg
4. Female Housing/Juvenile
Lockup
5. Civil Process Building
6. Training (Trailer)

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 215 -

7,992 gsf / CAMIS ID 807SDD0901

200 gsf
336 gsf / CAMIS ID 807SDD0906
576 gsf / CAMIS ID 807SDD0905

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Dukes County Jail and House of Correction
Description:
 The Dukes County Jail and House of Correction was built in 1873 on a 1.25 acre lot in a mixed-use neighborhood of Edgartown. The main building is
a three story wood structure containing administrative offices, nurse‟s station, inmate program space, and the kitchen. The original cellblocks are built
with granite and brick and are attached to wooden structures.
 Type II (wood) modular housing with six cells was added in 1984. In 2006, a modular classroom was added and is now used as dormitory housing.
 The Training building is also a Type II modular, nearing the end of its useful life. There is evidence of water infiltration and subsequent damage.
 The kitchen facilities are in an area the size of a residential kitchen. Lack of food storage space requires supplies to be ordered and delivered daily.
 The laundry is also residential in scale.
 Medical services are limited to sick call and pre-physicals. Inmates are transported off-site for medical services.
 There are limited means to keep populations separated by gender, age, and classification. There is no designated segregation unit.
 There is no indoor recreation space. Outdoor recreation space includes a half-court basketball court and weightlifting area.
 There is no dayroom in the original building.
 There is no room for expansion on the current site.
Major Issues:
 There are significant life safety issues including the lack of a sprinkler system in the original structure, the lack of second means of egress from the
second floor, non-compliant fire alarms, egress lighting and signage and manually locked cells.
 Several Hayes Report improvements are needed including replacement of non-detention grade lighting and bar-type cell doors.
 Some of the cells are windowless and lack adequate ventilation.
 The facility is not accessible. There is no elevator in the multi-floor facility.
 The recreation yard and sally port are secured with only a single fence that is damaged in places and lacks razor wire.
 Mechanical systems and roof replacement is needed.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 New Jail on airport site
 Modular Replacement
CAMIS Requested Projects:
FY 08 -- FY11 Deferred Maintenance Requests for Correction and Sherriffs Facilities
Site

Site Name

Building Name

Project Number

SDD00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT-DUKES

HOUSE OF CORRECTION

J000111415

SDD00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT-DUKES

HOUSE OF CORRECTION

J000111416

SDD00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT-DUKES

HOUSE OF CORRECTION

J000111418

Project Description
FY '11 UPGRADE LIGHTING WITHIN THE HOUSE OF
CORRECTION FACILITY

PhaseDescription
FY '11 UPGRADE LIGHTING WITHIN THE HOUSE OF
CORRECTION FACILITY

FY '11 REPLACE EXISTING SECURITY FENCING
FY '11 REPAIR AND REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT&RUBBER
ROOF MEMBRANE

FY '11 REPLACE EXISTING SECURITY FENCING
FY '11 REPAIR AND REPLACE EXISTING
ASPHALT&RUBBER ROOF MEMBRANE
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 216 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Est Cost

Status

24,000 Requested
300,000 Requested
30,000 Requested
$354,000

Dukes County Jail and House of Correction
Housing Capacity:
DUKES COUNTY JAIL & HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS - EDGARTOWN
(Custody Level: Medium/Minimum)
(Date Built: 1873)

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

8
16

---

---

56

1

6

6

7

2

7

16

--

--

6
6
--6

10
1

213
80

6
2

1
1

6
2

1
1

2
1

2
1

6
6

199
--

6
--

6
2

6
6
2

26

26

38

20

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS

1 cell, 4 beds (not in count)
1 cell, 1 bed (not in count)
Dayroom used for overflow
housing

(MW) = Modular/Wood Building
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 217 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

6
6

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

1
2

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

MAX No. of INMATES

6
6

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

DAYROOM SF

6
6

(35SF per Inmate)

MAX No. of INMATES

6
6

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

TOILETS

1
1

(1:8 Inmates)

56
56

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

11
10
--6

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

SHOWERS

F

SINKS

x

E

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

x

D

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

x
x

(ACA Standard)

C

INMATES PER ROOM

x
x
x

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B
SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

Dorm
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

Dorm - Modular (MW)
Female

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Original Bldg - 1st Floor
Original Bldg - 2nd Floor
Original Bldg - Intake/Holding (Male)
Original Bldg - Intake/Holding (Female)
Modular Housing (MW)

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

(1:6 Inmates)

MEN

30

19

6
6
---

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 218 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Essex County Alternative Center - Lawrence
Address:
Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

165 Marston Street
Lawrence, MA
1907
Pre-Release & Minimum
89,726 gsf

Buildings
1. Gymnasium/Re-Entry
Housing
2. Administration Bldg.
3. Annex Bldg. (Housing)
4. Boiler Room
5. Back Bldg. (Housing)
6.Juvenile Modular Bldg.
(Lockup)
7. City of Lawrence/Dog Pound
8. Chapel

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 219 -

15,522 gsf / CAMIS ID 515 SDEPB03
46,840 gsf / CAMIS ID 515SDEPB01
17,454 gsf / CAMIS ID 515SDEPB02
2,925 gsf / CAMIS ID 515SDEPB05
4,545 gsf / CAMIS ID 515SDEPB06
1,440 gsf / CAMIS ID 515SDE0601
-1,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 515SDEPB04

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Essex County Alternative Center - Lawrence
Description:
 The Essex County Correctional Alternative Center in Lawrence consists of six buildings of varying ages in a complex dating to 1907. The two main
buildings are brick and wood structures. The complex sits on a 13 acre parcel.
 The correctional complex is located within the flood plain adjacent to the Merrimac River. The area experienced flooding in recent years.
 Housing varies from small rooms to large dorms. Former farm equipment sheds along the Merrimac River have been converted to finished dorms.
 Some administrative and storage spaces are located in the Middleton facility.
 Health services area consists of a small Nurse‟s Station. Seriously ill inmates are transferred to the Middleton facility.
 The library is in good condition and appropriately sized for the population.
 Food services are contracted and dining space is very limited.
 Commercial washers and dryers are operated by inmates as part of a community service and work assignment.
 The gymnasium is used for visits.
 The Chapel is located in a more remote corner of the site and is without security cameras. The building has moisture issues and is structurally
marginal.
 Parking is adequate but repaving is needed.
Major Issues:
 The windows in the Administration Building are a residential grade replacement type in failing condition.
 The heating systems in the main buildings are antiquated and inefficient.
 There are major accessibility issues throughout the complex.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:

Minimum / Pre-release Expansion
CAMIS Requested Projects: None.

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 220 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Essex County Alternative Center - Lawrence
Housing Capacity:
ESSEX COUNTY ALTERNATIVE CENTER - LAWRENCE
(Custody Level: Minimum/Pre-Release)
(Date Built: 1907)

120
30
24

E

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

F

COMMENTS

120
30
24

26

IMPROVEMENTS
Add: 12 sinks, 11 showers **,
1 toilet
Add: 11 sinks, 2 toilets

Re-entry

174

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

340

15
12
7

D

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

96
36

(35SF per Inmate)

4
8

7
6
12
10
5

DAYROOM SF

24
Varies

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

3502
1326

7
6
10
5
4

TOILETS

178
30

(1:8 Inmates)

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

13
1

SHOWERS

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

Varies
--

C

(1:6 Inmates)

INMATES PER ROOM

4551
???

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

GENERAL POPULATION

178
30
-96
36

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

x
x
x
x
x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

Annex
Back

TYPE
Dorm
Dorm
Gym
Dorm
Dorm

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Main
Gym (NTH)

B

328

362

135

24
24

44

23

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

(ACA Standard)

A

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

MAX No. of INMATES

SLEEPING SPACE

MAX No. of INMATES

WOMEN

SINKS

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

208
96
24

(NTH) = Non-Traditional Housing
** = or Shower Controls

Essex County Women in Transition (W.I.T.) - Salisbury
Housing Capacity:
ESSEX COUNTY WOMEN IN TRANSITION (W.I.T.) - SALISBURY
(Custody Level: Pre-Release)
(Date Leased: 2001)
Female

Room

x

24
24

varies

4

6
6

24

?

?

?

?

?

?

24
24

Temporary Leased Facility

Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 221 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 222 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Essex County Correctional Facility - Middleton
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

20 Manning Avenue
Middleton, MA
1991
Pre-Trial, Medium &
Maximum
236,518 gsf

Buildings
1. 120 Bed Unit
2. 60 Bed Unit
3. 80 Bed Unit
4. Recreation
5. 240 Bed Unit
6.Library /
Programs
7. Intake/Services
8. Laundry
9. Administration
10. Warehouse

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 223 -

20,300 gsf / CAMIS ID 517SDEPB07
11,704 gsf / CAMIS ID 517SDEPB11
12,204 gsf / CAMIS ID 517SDEPB02
9,860 gsf / CAMIS ID 517SDEPB09
42,400 gsf / CAMIS ID 517SDEPB08
24,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 517SDEPB06
53,600 gsf / CAMIS ID 517SDEPB10
33,800 gsf / CAMIS ID 517SDEPB03
20,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 517SDEPB01
8,250 gsf / CAMIS ID 517SDEPB04

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Essex County Correctional Facility - Middleton
Description:
 The current Essex County Correctional Facility in Middleton is a ten building “modular” complex which opened in 1991 on a 20 acre site. The complex
consists of four housing buildings, a laundry/vocational building with converted dorm housing, a recreation/gym building, the library/programs
building, a warehouse/maintenance building, and the administration building.
 The structures of the buildings vary from slab-on-grade with precast concrete cells for housing units to modular sections on concrete piers for
administrative functions. The Library / Programs Building, the Intake / Medical Building, and the Administration Building are modular wood/steel
buildings on concrete piers. All buildings are clad in EFIS exterior panels which are in varying stages of failure.
 The Vocational Building, a metal „Butler‟ type structure, was designed to contain the Laundry and Vocational programs but was partially converted to
Dorm inmate housing. The building is not insulated and is not well suited for housing.
 Healthcare services are provided by a private vender using the onsite facilities which are inadequate for the present inmate population.
 Food services are also provided by a private vender at the Middleton facility. The kitchen and central dining are in good condition but the spaces for
food preparation and storage appear to be inadequate for the present inmate population.
 The front lobby and visitation area are inadequately sized for the present inmate population.
 There is no outside recreation attached to the segregation housing unit.
 Parking is limited on this crowded site.
Major Issues:
 The EFIS cladding on the building exteriors is failing or failed.
 The underground conduit for exterior parking and perimeter security lighting has failed.
 Wood modular buildings on concrete piers will eventually require major repairs or replacement.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:

Intake Center

Modular Replacement

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 224 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Essex County Correctional Facility - Middleton
CAMIS Requested Projects:
FY 08 -- FY11 Deferred Maintenance Requests for Correction and Sherriffs Facilities
Site

Site Name

Building Name

Project Number

Project Description

PhaseDescription

Status

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT MIDDLETON

120 BED

J000101292

REPLACE 0000026333 0000026334 ROOF A/H UNITS

SDE01

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT MIDDLETON

ADMINISTRATION

J000107528

PERIMETER & PARKING LIGHTING

REPLACE EXISTING PARKING LOT LIGHTING SYSTEM

SDE01

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - MIDDLETON

J000110380

REPAIR MAN HOLES & CATCH BASINS

REPAIR OF CATCH BASINS

30,000 Requested

SDE01

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - MIDDLETON

J000110385

KITCHEN BOILER REPLACEMENT

REPLACE KITCHEN BOILER UNIT

18,000 Requested

SDE01

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - MIDDLETON

120 BED

J000110384

GYM HEATING UNIT

REPLACE GYM HEATING UNIT

25,704 Requested

SDE01

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - MIDDLETON

60 BED

J000110391

REPLACE BOTH 60/80 BED ENTRY DOORS

27,000 Requested

SDE01

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - MIDDLETON

PUMP HOUSE

J000110398

INSTALL FREQUENCY DRIVE @ PUMP HOUSE

FREQUENCY DRIVE PUMP HOUSE

19,278 Requested

SDE01

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - MIDDLETON

J000110403

PRESSURE REDUCER VALVES IN HOUSING UNITS

REPLACE REDUCER VALVES HOUSING UNITS

12,852 Requested

SDE01

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - MIDDLETON

J000110568

CLEAN FACILITY HVAC DUCT WORK

CLEAN FACILITY HVAC DUCT WORK

85,680 Requested

SDE01

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - MIDDLETON

J000111227

ENERGY EFFICIENT EXTERIOR LIGHTING

ENERGY EFFICIENT EXTERIOR LIGHTING

REPLACE 60/80 BED UNIT ENTRY DOORS

REPLACE POOR EQUIP ROOF A/H UNITS

Est Cost

SDE01

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 225 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

40,000 Requested
120,000 Requested

26,000 Requested
$404,514

Essex County Correctional Facility - Middleton
Housing Capacity:
ESSEX COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - MIDDLETON
(Custody Level: Maximum/Medium)
(Date Built: 1991)

(ACA Standard)

TOILETS

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SF

MAX No. of INMATES

120
60
16
240

320
80
96
320

11,720
5,860
3,202
23,440

335
167
91
670

X
X
X
x
x

72
20
216
63

4001
838
934
1094

113
25
27
30

1
1
1
1

113
25
27
30

2
5
10
10

0
7
8
8

2
7
10
8

0
30
60
48

(35SF per Inmate)

SHOWERS

40
10
14
40

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

SINKS

120
60
16
240

(1:8 Inmates)

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

240
120
80
480

(1:6 Inmates)

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

120
60
20
240

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

2
2
4
2

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

INMATES PER ROOM

E

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

D

70
70
160
70

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm

C

240
120
160
480
--

GENERAL POPULATION

Gym (NTH)
Voc 1 (NTH)
Voc 2 (NTH)
Voc 3 (NTH)
Voc 4 (NTH)

B

x
X
X
X
x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Dorm
Cell
Cell/Dorm

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
120 Bldg
60 Bldg
80 Bldg
240 Bldg
Infirmary

(Temp. Housing)

(Temp. Housing)

A

3,955
875
945
1,050

113
25
27
30

F

240
80
80
320
-0
25
27
30

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

SLEEPING SPACE

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

WOMEN

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

1185

500

240
80
80
320
Not In Count
Not Currently Used

Add: 17 sinks, 14 showers **,
12 toilets

113
25
27
30

Not Currently Used
1371

444

802

915

(NTH) = Non-Traditional Housing
** = or Shower Controls

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 226 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Franklin County Jail and House of Correction
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

160 Elm Street
Greenfield, MA 01301
2007
Pre-Trial, Minimum,
Maximum

Medium

&

118,050 gsf

Buildings
1. Main Building
1A Housing
1B Health/Education/
Administration/Intake
1C Kitchen/Laundry/
Printing/Mechanical
2. Warehouse
3. Pre-Release/Original Building
4. Maintenance/Garage

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 227 -

99,600 gsf / CAMIS ID 164SDF0601

2,016 gsf / CAMIS ID 164SDF0603
13,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 164SDFPB07
3,234 gsf / CAMIS ID 164SDF0602

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Franklin County Jail and House of Correction
Description:
 The current Franklin County Jail and HOC in Greenfield is the Commonwealth‟s newest correctional facility which opened in 2007. It is a steel framed
masonry infill structure with precast concrete cell housing units. It is situated on a 47 acre site adjacent to the original 1880 Jail and HOC building.
 The inmate housing is located in four housing pods consisting of 144 cells with 80 square feet of area. The cells are double bunked except for the
accessible cells which are single bunked. It is in excellent condition.
 The medical healthcare area has exam rooms with dental and optometrist rooms, pharmacy and a medical record storage room.
 The kitchen and laundry facilities are adequately sized and in excellent condition.
 The facility has a large library and several educational classrooms in excellent condition. It has a Print Shop which provides vocational training.
 The original1880 building accommodates some administrative offices, and it has two, three-story units, each comprised of 18 cells. The cells are only
48 square feet and dayroom space is limited to the area immediately outside the cells. Female pretrial and sentenced inmates are currently housed in
six locked cells in one unit. The other unit was renovated after the new facility opened for male pre-release / work release housing, which involved
removing doors from the undersized cells to create sleeping alcoves. Male pre-release inmates were recently moved to the new medium-security
facility.
Major Issues:
 The female housing unit mixes classifications (pretrial and sentenced), cell size is not code compliant and often there is only one or two women held
in the area with limited oversight by staff. There are few programs available to female inmates due to the population size.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 None
CAMIS Requested Projects:
FY 08 -- FY11 Deferred Maintenance Requests for Correction and Sherriffs Facilities
Site

Site Name

SDF00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - FRANKLIN

SDF00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - FRANKLIN

SDF00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - FRANKLIN

SDF00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - FRANKLIN

Building Name

Project Number

Project Description

PhaseDescription

J000109186

INSTALLATION/UPGRADE OF SECURITY CAMERA SYSTEM

INCREASE SECURITY CAMERA SYSTEM

OLD JAIL BUILDING

J000109185

FY '09 POINTING OF EXTERIOR BRICK

POINT EXISTING BRICK FACADE

MAIN BUILDING

J000111254

FY '11 REPLACE 37 WINDOWS - PRE-RELEASE

FY '11 REPLACE 37 WINDOWS - PRE-RELEASE

MAIN BUILDING

J000111255

FY '11 REPAIR SLATE ROOF ON "OLD" JAIL

FY '11 REPAIR SLATE ROOF ON "OLD" JAIL
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 228 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Est Cost

Status

21,750 Requested
198,135 Requested
18,500 Requested
2,000 Requested
$240,385

Franklin County Jail and House of Correction
Housing Capacity:
FRANKLIN COUNTY JAIL AND HOC - GREENFIELD
(Custody Level: Maximum/Medium/Minimum)
(Date Built: 2007) (Old Jail Building Built: 1887)

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SF

MAX No. of INMATES

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

TOILETS

36
36
36
36

6
6
6
6

36
36
36
36

48
48
48
48

2,595
2,595
2,595
2,595

74
74
74
74

28
12
6

28
2
6

4
2
1

28
2
6

32
12
8

1,200
600
312

34
17
9

(1:8 Inmates)

SHOWERS

E

72
72
72
72

(1:6 Inmates)

1
Varies
1

36
36
36
36
5
28
5
6

D

SINKS

48
144
48

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

2*
2*
2*
2*

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

80
80
80
80

C

188

F

48
48
48
48
-28
12
6

COMMENTS
Medium Custody
Medium Custody
Medium Custody
Medium Custody
Not in Count
Old Jail Building
Old Jail Building
Old Jail Building, Med Custody

IMPROVEMENTS
Add: 3 Showers **
Add: 3 Showers **
Add: 3 Showers **
Add: 3 Showers **

238

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 229 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

268

144

72
72
72
72
-28
12
6
334

* = Currently some cells are single bunked HCP
** = or Shower Controls
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

330

INMATES PER ROOM

71
71
71
71
-28
12
6

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

x

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

x
x
x
x
x
x
x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

GENERAL POPULATION

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Dorm
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Pod A
Pod B
Pod C
Pod D
Intake
Minimum
Pre-Release
Female

B

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

(ACA Standard)

A

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

SLEEPING SPACE

(35SF per Inmate)

WOMEN

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 230 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Hampden Western Massachusetts Regional
Women‟s Correctional Center
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

701 Center Street
Chicopee, MA 01013
2007
Pre-release , Minimum &
Medium
65,990 gsf

Buildings
1. Main Bldg./Housing
(POD 1-1 & 1-2, 4-1)

40,460 gsf / CAMIS ID 258SDH0700 (Main)
9,725 gsf / CAMIS ID 258SDH0701 (1-1 & 1-2)
5,565 gsf / CAMIS ID 258SDH0702 (4-1)

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 231 -

2. Housing POD 2-1 & 2-2

10,240 gsf / CAMIS ID 258SDH0703

3. Emergency Generator
4. Grounds Maintenance
Shed

---

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Western Massachusetts Regional Women‟s Correctional Center
Description:
 The Western Massachusetts Regional Women‟s Correctional Center is an interconnected two building complex in Chicopee. The facility is located on
a cut-fill plateau near the top of a steeply sloping site. The site contains 20 acres but only approximately 6 acres are buildable.
 The buildings are primarily steel structures with masonry block infill and precast concrete cells for housing.
 The female inmate housing is located in six units consisting of 96 cells with 80 square feet and 24 cells with 100 square feet. Most cells are double
bunked.
 Medical healthcare consists of four exam rooms, nurses and doctor‟s offices, and a dental room.
 The kitchen and laundry are adequately sized and are in excellent condition.
 The facility has a moderate sized central library and educational classrooms which are in excellent condition.
 The facility has adequate outdoor recreation space, but lacks an indoor gym.
 The amount of parking is adequate.
 The site has subsurface and grade issues which must be considered with any new construction.
 There are limited opportunities for expansion, beyond a small parcel located south of the recreation yard.
Major Issues:
 The facility does not have an indoor recreation area/gym.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 None

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 232 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Western Massachusetts Regional Women‟s Correctional Center
Housing Capacity:
WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS REGIONAL WOMEN'S CORRECTIONAL CENTER - CHICOPEE
(Custody Level: Medium/Minimum/Pre-Release)
(Date Built: 2007)

TOILETS

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SF

MAX No. of INMATES

5
5
8
8
8
8

4
4
24
24
24
24

24
24
64
64
64
64

1,145
1,005
1,785
1,705
1,845
2,405

33
29
51
49
53
69

120

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

24
24
48
48
48
48
---

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS

Pre-release
Pre-release
* Normally some single bunked

150

228

24
24
48
48
48
48

2 holding cells (not in count)
4 exam rooms, no overnight beds

240

- 233 -

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

SHOWERS

4
4
24
24
24
24

(35SF per Inmate)

SINKS

24
24
48
48
48
48

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

12
12
24
24
24
24

(1:8 Inmates)

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

2
2
2
2*
2
2

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

100
100
80
80
80
80

F
AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

230

E

INMATES PER ROOM

24
24
46
44
46
46
---

D

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

(ACA Standard)

C

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B
SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

GENERAL POPULATION

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Minimum Unit A
Minimum Unit B
Housing Unit 1A
Segregation Unit 1B
Housing Unit 2A (Pre-Trial)
Housing Unit 2B (Sentenced)
Intake
Health Services

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

(1:6 Inmates)

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

240

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 234 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Hampden County Jail and House of Correction Ludlow
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

627 Randall Road
Ludlow, MA 01056
1992
Maximum, Medium & Minimum
571,284 gsf

Buildings

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 235 -

1. Building C – SMOW
2. Building B – HOC
3. Building A – Jail
4. Programs Building
5. Health and Food Services
Bldg.

132,740 gsf / CAMIS ID 259SDHPB01

6. Recreation Building
7. Intake/Visiting Bldg.
8. Admin/Visitor/Court Facility
9. Pre-Release Bldg.
10. Central Warehouse/Auto
Maint. Bldg.

10,944 gsf / CAMIS ID 259SDHPB19

11. Pedestrian Sallyport

2,400 gsf / CAMIS ID 259SDHPB13

104,580 gsf / CAMIS ID 259SDHPB07
104,580 gsf / CAMIS ID 259SDHPB15
59,320 gsf / CAMIS ID 259SDHPB20
48,528 gsf / CAMIS ID 259SDHPB21

11,520 gsf / CAMIS ID 259SDHPB22
32,760 gsf / CAMIS ID 259SDHPB09
50,384 gsf / CAMIS ID 259SDHPB03
13,528 gsf / CAMIS ID 259SDHPB04

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Hampden County Jail and House of Correction - Ludlow
Description:
 The Hampden County Jail and HOC is an eleven building complex on a 52 acre site. The buildings include three housing towers, an intake building, a
programs /vocation/inner administration building, a visitation building, a multi-purpose building, a health and food services building, an administration
building and a warehouse/storage facility.
 The main housing units are in three towers consisting of primarily steel structures and precast concrete cells.
 The main food service area is relatively spacious but major pieces of equipment are in marginal condition. The original central dining has been
converted to program space with meals delivered to the housing units.
 Health services are located in a portion of the area originally designed as an infirmary. A regional mental health stabilization unit has been closed due
to funding issues.
 The facility has extensive program and vocational/industries space. There 15 classrooms and a library for educational programs. All sentenced
inmates are required to participate in vocational/educational programs.
 There is no outside recreation area adjacent to the segregation housing.
 The original women‟s facility was converted to a men‟s pre-release facility when the Western Massachusetts Regional Women‟s Correctional Center
in Chicopee opened in 2007. It is in good condition and is heavily used.
 Future development is limited to approximately 20 acres due to significant wetland and habitat issues.
Major Issues:
 A large 5 foot diameter storm water drainage culvert is settling and restricting the critical surface flow thru it, potentially impacting the main access
road to the facility.
 The exterior façade and roofs of the housing towers have had some issues including failure of the expansion joints caulking.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Recreation Yard adjacent to Segregation Unit.
 Regional Lockup

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 236 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Hampden County Jail and House of Correction – Ludlow
CAMIS Requested Projects:
FY 08 -- FY11 Deferred Maintenance Requests for Correction and Sherriffs Facilities

SDH00

Site

SHERIFF'S DEPT - HAMPDEN - LUDLOW

Site Name

Building Name
HEALTH SERVICES / FOOD
SERVICES

J000107134

Project Number

SDH00

SHERIFF'S DEPT - HAMPDEN - LUDLOW

ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

J000108135

SDH00

SHERIFF'S DEPT - HAMPDEN - LUDLOW

GENERATOR HOUSES

J000109826

SDH00

SHERIFF'S DEPT - HAMPDEN - LUDLOW

SDH00

SHERIFF'S DEPT - HAMPDEN - LUDLOW

SDH00

SHERIFF'S DEPT - HAMPDEN - LUDLOW

J000111343

SDH00

SHERIFF'S DEPT - HAMPDEN - LUDLOW

J000111352

J000111304
HEALTH SERVICES / FOOD
SERVICES

J000111334

Project Description
PhaseDescription
REMOVE MAIN KITCHEN FLOOR AND APPLY SLIP RESISTANT
EPOXY
REMOVE EXISTING TILE AND APPLY EPOXY SURFACE
STUDY AND DESIGN THE REPLACEMENT OF 3 RTU
REPLACEMENT OF (3) RTU @ 736 STATE STREET, SPFLD
W/EMS
EMERGENCY POWER GENERATOR CONTROLS FOR DEMAND INSTALL REMOTE SWITCHES FOR EMERGENCY POWER
RESPONSE PROGRAM
GENERATORS
DESIGN REPAIRS TO SINK HOLE AND COLAPSED
REPAIR SINK HOLE AND COLAPSED CULVERTS
CULVERT
STUDY THE OVER BURDENED ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY STUDY THE OVER BURDENED ELECTRICAL POWER
SYSTEM TO THE FA
SUPPLY SYSTEM
STUDY THE REPLACEMENT OF THE PEREMETER FENCE
STUDY THE REPLACEMENT OF THE PEREMETER FENCE
ALARM
ALARM
STUDY THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SECURITY CAMERA
STUDY THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SECURITY CAMERA
SYSTEM -VICON
SYSTEM - VICON
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 237 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Est Cost

Status

190,000 Requested
90,450 Requested
55,000 Requested
50,000 Requested
30,000 Requested
25,000 Requested
25,000 Requested
$465,450

Hampden County Jail and House of Correction - Ludlow
Housing Capacity:
HAMPDEN COUNTY JAIL AND HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS - LUDLOW
(Custody Level: Maximum/Medium/Minimum/Pre-Release)
(Date Built: 1992)

292

512

6,450

184

184

184

284

62

284

496

6,450

184

184

184

301

74

301

592

31,258

893

592

592

23

29

47

138

5,198

149

138
---

961

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

64

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

292

---

1588

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

MAX No. of INMATES

(35SF per Inmate)

DAYROOM SF

76

F

MAX No. of INMATES

558

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

462

E

TOILETS

440
216
440
192
342
294
36
198

(1:8 Inmates)

220
72
220
64
203
98
18
66

D

SHOWERS

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3

492

Intake
ESU Mental Health Unit

(ACA Standard)

C

(1:6 Inmates)

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

80
120
70
120
80
120
90
120

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

GENERAL POPULATION

INMATES PER ROOM

Minimum / Pre-Release

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B
SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

C-Tower

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

B-Tower

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Davis Tower

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

SINKS

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

1402

1178

138
7 gang cells (not in count)
20 severe mental health patients

1,098

---

1,098

Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

Hampden County Correctional Alcohol Center (WMCAC) – Springfield
Housing Capacity:
WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONAL ALCOHOL CENTER - SPRINGFIELD
(Custody Level: Medium)
(Date Built: 1986)
WMCAC

Dorms

x

x

-182

--

51
51

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

-182

-182

Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 238 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

174

125

Hampshire County Jail and House of Correction
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:

Sq. Footage:

205 Rocky Hill Road
Northampton, MA
1985
Pre-Release,
Minimum,
Medium & Maximum
107,114 GSF

Buildings
1. Modular Building
2. Main Facility
3. Work Release (Building “E”)
4. Regional Holding Facility
5. Maintenance Building
6. Observation Tower
7. Program Modular Bldg.
(Caning)

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 239 -

14,000 gsf (Leased)
80,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 213HSDPB01
6,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 213HSDPB03
2,500 gsf / CAMIS ID 213HSDPB06
4,364 gsf / CAMIS ID 213HSDPB02
250 gsf / CAMIS ID 213HSDPB05
1,428 gsf

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Hampshire County Jail and House of Correction
Description:
 The current Hampshire Jail & HOC was opened in 1985. It replaced a Civil War era facility located in downtown Northampton.
 The Main Building contains the secure inmate housing units with 108 male cells and 6 female cells. The cells are 70 square feet with a single bed.
The main housing units are in good condition but the small size of the units makes them inefficient for supervision and their split-level design creates
serious access issues.
 The administrative space is in good condition but is over-crowded, limiting an increase to inmate housing or programs.
 The Pre-Release Building is in good condition but lacks adequate program space for its 46 beds.
 The Regional Lock-up Building was built in 2001 to provide pre-arraignment housing for nights, weekends, and holidays. It is in excellent condition
and appears to be adequately sized for its current and projected use. The Lock-up is empty for almost half the day as individuals are transported
directly to the courts for arraignment.
 The Maintenance Building was added in 1993 and is in excellent condition.
 The facility has adequate parking for its current size.
Major Issues:
 The sites‟ topography has created several access issues that are not easily resolved. Although the site has not been completely developed, its shape
and terrain make expansion difficult.
 The main building has fundamental layout issues that contribute to accessibility and security problems. Units are a split-level configuration, requiring
half a flight of stairs up or down to access the unit. The dayroom is part of the circulation space.
 The women‟s unit has no direct natural light into the cells.
 The Modular Housing Building contains two minimum security dorm units with 60 beds each. The building is leased is in poor condition and is well
beyond its intended life span.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Modular Housing Replacement
 Housing & Pre-release Expansion

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 240 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Hampshire County Jail and House of Correction
CAMIS Requested Projects:
FY 08 -- FY11 Deferred Maintenance Requests for Correction and Sherriffs Facilities
Site

Site Name

Building Name

HSD00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HAMPSHIRE

GUARD TOWER

HSD00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HAMPSHIRE

HSD00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - HAMPSHIRE

MAIN BUILDING

HSD00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - HAMPSHIRE

HSD00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - HAMPSHIRE

HSD00
HSD00

Project Number

Project Description

PhaseDescription
REPLACE TOWERS

Est Cost

Status

J000107102

FY09 GUARD TOWER REPLACEMENT

J000109205

UPDATE 5 BATHROOMS IN MINIMUM SECURITY BUILDING

J000107109

FYO8 CODE COMPLIANT 2ND EGRESS FROM MEDICAL

INSTALL 2ND EXIT DOOR

MAINTENANCE GARAGE

J000107105

ASPHAULT REPLACEMENT/ ADA PARKING

PAVE ASPHAULT DRIVEWAY CONCRETE WALWAYS

MAIN BUILDING

J000107110

WINDOW GLASS REPLACEMENT

REPLACE GLAZING AS REQUIRED THROUGHOUT

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - HAMPSHIRE

MAIN BUILDING

J000107110

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - HAMPSHIRE

MAIN BUILDING

J000109595

WINDOW GLASS REPLACEMENT
COMPRESSOR (PRESSURE VESSEL)-OPERATES ALL
PNEUMATIC CONTROLS

REPLACE DOOR GLASS
COMPRESSOR (PRESSURE VESSEL) OPERATES ALL
PNEUMATIC

HSD00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - HAMPSHIRE

MAIN BUILDING

J000110477

HSD00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - HAMPSHIRE

MAIN BUILDING

J000107103

REPLACE OVERHEAD DOOR IN SALLYPORT AREA
FY09 FIRE ALRM SYS; ADA & CARBON MONOXIDE
COMPLIANCE

REPLACE OVERHEAD DOOR IN SALLYPORT AREA
REPLACE DETECTORS AND AUDIO VISUALS WITH ADA
COMPLIANT UNITS- UPDATED COST

HSD00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - HAMPSHIRE

MAIN BUILDING

J000107108

FY09 SEALING EXTERIOR BLOCK WALL

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - HAMPSHIRE

MAIN BUILDING

J000107111

FY09 AC REPLACEMENT

SEAL GARAGE
REPLACE PORTABLE AC UNIT DUCTED INTO DROP
CEILING

15,551 Requested

HSD00
HSD00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - HAMPSHIRE

MAIN BUILDING

J000107111

FY09 AC REPLACEMENT

REPLACE WATER COOLED UNITS

38,877 Requested

HSD00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - HAMPSHIRE

PERIMETER SECURITY

J000107113

FY09 PERIMETER SECURITY FENCE

REPAIR OR REPLACE FENCE

HSD00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - HAMPSHIRE

WORK RELEASE BUILDING

J000110463

REPLACE BOILER IN MINIMUM SECURITY BUILDING

REPLACE BOILER IN WORK RELEASE BUILDING

HSD00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - HAMPSHIRE

MAINTENANCE GARAGE

J000111384

REPLACE ROOF ON MAINTENANCE BUILDING

HSD00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - HAMPSHIRE

J000111385

MISCELLANEOUS FACILITY STUDIES

REPLACE ROOF ON MAINTENANCE BUILDING
4 BUILDINGS ALL 25 YEARS OLD REQUIRING STUDIES
FOR REPAIR

HSD00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - HAMPSHIRE

MAIN BUILDING

J000107108

FY09 SEALING EXTERIOR BLOCK WALL

SEAL CONCRETE BLOCK ON MAIN BUILDING.

HSD00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - HAMPSHIRE

MAIN BUILDING

J000107108

FY09 SEALING EXTERIOR BLOCK WALL

SEAL WORK RELEASE BUILDING

0 Requested

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 241 -

21,546 Requested

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

6,400 Requested
40,172 Requested
103,400 Requested
13,200 Requested
5,500 Requested
9,643 Requested
1,755,461 Requested

6,480 Requested

1,606,500 Requested
10,700 Requested
37,000 Requested
200,000 Requested
90,610 Requested
19,216 Requested
$3,980,256

Hampshire County Jail and House of Correction
Housing Capacity:
HAMPSHIRE COUNTY JAIL AND HOC - NORTHAMPTON
(Custody Level: maximum/Medium/Minimum/Pre-Release)
(Date Built: 1985)

84
24
6
3
3

112
32
16
8
8

4,007
840
507

114
24
8

9

9

9

64

2,100

9

9

9

64

11
24

5
4

11
24

40
32

181

112
24
8
(8)
(3)

60

60

2,100

60

60

1,375
1,149

NA
33

40
(24)

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS

Not In Count
Not In Count

248

60
60
Add: 2 Showers **
Not In Count - Regional Lock Up

304

- 242 -

285

112
24
8
---

Maximum Custody

51
(24)
315

(MW) = Modular Wood Building
* (287) Occupancy Permit
** = or Shower Controls
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

MAX No. of INMATES

14
4
2
1
1

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

DAYROOM SF

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

MAX No. of INMATES

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

84
24
6
3
3

F
AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

280

E

TOILETS

168
48
12
6
6
30
20
30
20
51
24

(1:8 Inmates)

84
24
6
3
3
5
5
5
5
17
24

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2)

2
2
2
2
2
6
4
6
4
3
1

D

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

(ACA Standard)

C

SHOWERS

46
(24)

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

60

70
70
70
70
70
386
260
386
260
120
54

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

(Temp. Housing)

60

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

84
24
6
(8)
(3)

INMATES PER ROOM

Room
Cell

x

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B
SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

Dorm

Release/Pre-Release
Regional Holding Facility

x

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

South Modular (MW)

x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

Dorm

GENERAL POPULATION

North Modular (MW)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Housing Block
SMU
Lower Level
Medical
Holding / Intake

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

(35SF per Inmate)

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

SINKS

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Middlesex County House of Correction
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

269 Treble Cove Road
Billerica, MA 01821
1929
Minimum & Medium
347,818 gsf

Buildings
1. Original Facility
1A Housing
1B Administration
1C Recreation
1D Service
2. Work Release
3. Addition: Housing/Support
4. CWP Building
5. Transportation Office &
Garage
6. Weight Room (Roof Only)
7. Warehouse
8. Visitor Center
9. Offices (Semi Vacant)
10. Greenhouse
11. Barn (Collapsing)
12. SOU SWAT Team
13. Sheriff Offices

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 243 -

121,544 gsf / CAMIS ID 418SDMPB02

6,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 418SDMPB04
175,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 418SDM0501
20,400 gsf / CAMIS ID 418SDMPB01
4,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 418SDM0301
-4,889 gsf / CAMIS ID 418SDM0802
1,785 gsf / CAMIS ID 418SDM0801
6,300 gsf / CAMIS ID 418SDMPB03
-7,500 gsf / CAMIS ID 418SDMPB03
---

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Middlesex County House of Correction
Description:
 The Middlesex Jail and House of Correction in Billerica was opened in 1929. The main building was a brick and steel framed structure with 300 cells
which were originally double bunked. In 2006, a new 256 cell Pod Housing Unit was built adjoining the original Tier Housing Unit. The facility currently
houses both pre-trial and sentenced male inmates.
 The Pod kitchen facilities were designed and constructed to meet the needs of the existing facility, the Pod Unit, and also the addition of a future Pod.
 The central dining areas in the original main building and the new pod facility have been converted to program / activity space with all food delivered
to the cells.
 The central laundry facilities are housed in the old main building. The space is adequate but the condition and capacity of the equipment is marginal.
 The Community Work Program Building and the Work Release Building house minimum and pre-release inmates. The CWP Building is a reinforced
concrete and brick masonry structure built in approximately 1936. The Work Release Building is a wood frame structure constructed in approximately
1930 as the Sheriff‟s House.
 A pre-engineered metal building was built in 2001 to contain storage, the transportation office, and the locksmith shop.
 A new Visitor Center and a new Warehouse were added in 2009. A passenger van is used to shuttle visitors from the Center to the Pod lobby, adding
to operational costs.
 The site has adequate area within the secure perimeter for a major housing addition.
Major Issues:
 The Tier Housing Unit‟s interior has been renovated but its exterior metal cell windows are in poor condition and require replacement.
 Several areas on the main building‟s façade have structural issues with the exterior brick masonry.
 The Tier Housing Unit‟s cells have ventilation issues resulting in high temperatures in the upper tier during the summer.
 The Maintenance and Welding Shop is in the basement of the CWP Building which includes inmate housing. There is no second means of egress
from the Maintenance Shop. The building does not have a sprinkler system and has numerous accessibility issues. A large percentage of the wood
trim at the roof line requires replacement.
 The Work Release Building has only wooden fire egress stairs.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Additional Housing Unit

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 244 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Middlesex County House of Correction
CAMIS Requested Projects:
FY 08 -- FY11 Deferred Maintenance Requests for Correction and Sherriffs Facilities
Site

Site Name

Building Name

Project Number

STUDY
CONSTRUCTION REPAIR - CRACKING, CRUMBLING,
WINDOW REPLACE

580,000 Requested

J000085105

Project Description
REPAIR ENTIRE ENVELOPE OF BLDG, REPLACE ORIG
WINDOWS & MASONRY
REPAIR ENTIRE ENVELOPE OF BLDG, REPLACE ORIG
WINDOWS & MASONRY
REPAIR ENTIRE ENVELOPE OF BLDG, REPLACE ORIG
WINDOWS & MASONRY

STUDY

620,842 Requested

J000111363

COMMUNITY WORK BUILDING PLUMBING PROJECT

COMMUNITY WORK BUILDING PLUMBING PROJECT

204,550 Requested

J000111364

COMMUNITY WORK BUILDING SPRINKLER SYSTEM

COMMUNITY WORK BUILDING SPRINKLER SYSTEM

WORK RELEASE (BLDG 4)

J000111367

WORK RELEASE BUILDING PLUMBING & HVAC

WORK RELEASE BUILDING PLUMBING & HVAC

194,980 Requested

WORK RELEASE (BLDG 4)
COMMUNITY WORK PROGRAM
(BLDG 3)
COMMUNITY WORK PROGRAM
(BLDG 3)

J000111368

WORK RELEASE FIRE ESCAPES

J000111375

COMMUNITY WORK BUILDING STRUCTURE & FOUNDATION

WORK RELEASE FIRE ESCAPE
COMMUNITY WORK BUILDING STRUCTURE &
FOUNDATION

260,325 Requested

J000111378

COMMUNITY WORK HVAC

COMMUNITY WORK BUILDING HVAC

286,350 Requested

SDM01 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - MIDDLESEX B

TIER BUILDING

J000085105

SDM01 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - MIDDLESEX B

TIER BUILDING

J000085105

SDM01 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - MIDDLESEX B

SDM01 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - MIDDLESEX B

WORK RELEASE (BLDG 4)
COMMUNITY WORK PROGRAM
(BLDG 3)
COMMUNITY WORK PROGRAM
(BLDG 3)

SDM01 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - MIDDLESEX B
SDM01 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - MIDDLESEX B

SDM01 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - MIDDLESEX B

SDM01 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - MIDDLESEX B
SDM01 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - MIDDLESEX B

PhaseDescription

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 245 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Est Cost

Status

75,000 Requested

66,400 Requested

78,900 Requested

$2,367,347

Middlesex County House of Correction
Housing Capacity:
MIDDLESEX COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS - BILLERICA
(Custody Level: Maximum/Medium/Minimum)
(Date Built: 1929)

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

(ACA Standard)

1183

Varies
Varies
Varies

Varies
Varies
Varies

1
1
10
10
7

10

--

10

--

--

--

--

101

12

99

96

3,420

98

96

8

5

8

40

2,225

63

40

Protective Custody

101

11

100

88
3,933

112

112

Medium Custody

3,300
3,300
3,300
3,300

94
94
94
94

80
80
80
80
--20
22
28
20
26

20
22
28
20
26

101

11

100

88

64
64
64
64

10
10
10
10

64
64
64
64

80
80
80
80

9
12

6
8

11
7

595

48
56

1,432
NA

41
NA

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

10

(1:8 Inmates)

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

50
49
63
50
50
50
50
128
128
128
128

MAX No. of INMATES

50
49
1
50
50
50
50
64
64
64
64

DAYROOM SF

1
1
63
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2

F

MAX No. of INMATES

48
48
1575
48
48
48
48
81
81
81
81

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

100
98
65
100
100
50
50
126
126
126
126
--20
22
28
20
26

E

TOILETS

10

D

SHOWERS

1

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2)

48

C

SINKS

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

--

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

INMATES PER ROOM

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

(Temp. Housing)

x

B

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

Cell
Cell
Dorm
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

Tier Bldg - Tier A & B
Tier Bldg - Tier C & D
Tier Bldg - PC (Dorm)
Tier Bldg - Tier E & F
Tier Bldg - Tier G & H
Tier Bldg - Tier I & J
Tier Bldg - Tier K & L
Pod Bldg - Pod A
Pod Bldg - Pod B
Pod Bldg - Pod C
Pod Bldg - Pod D
Pod Bldg - Intake
Pod Bldg - Infirmary
CWP Bldg - Plaza 1 (Dorm) *
CWP Bldg - Plaza 2 (Dorm) *
CWP Bldg - Plaza 3 (Dorm) *
Work Release Bldg - House #1 (Dorm) *
Work Release Bldg - House #2 (Dorm) *

GENERAL POPULATION

TYPE
Cell

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

UNIT
Tier Bldg - Segregation

GENERAL POPULATION

(Temp. Housing)

A

COMMENTS
Not occupied, limited natural light

IMPROVEMENTS

Medium Custody

Add: 3 Showers
Add: 2 Showers; Renovate:
add Dayroom Area
Add: 2 Showers; Renovate:
add Dayroom Area
Add: 6 Showers
Add: 6 Showers
Add: 6 Showers
Add: 6 Showers

874

96
63
100
100
128
128
128
128

(not in count)
(not in count)

Minimum Custody

684

- 246 -

841

Medium Custody

20
22
28
20
26
987

* = Current beds carried in CMP Basline Capacity due to lack of information.

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

SLEEPING SPACE

(35SF per Inmate)

WOMEN

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

MEN

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Middlesex County Jail
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

40 Thorndike Street
Cambridge, MA 02141
1983
Maximum, Minimum
84,608 gsf

Buildings
1. Middlesex County Jail

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 247 -

84,608 gsf / CAMIS ID 445SDMPB01

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Middlesex County Jail
Description:
 The Cambridge Superior Courthouse complex was designed and built in the early 1970‟s during a period of urban social unrest. A new jail for
Middlesex County in Cambridge was incorporated into the design to be situated in the top four floors of the 20 story Courthouse High-rise. It is one of
the few high-rise maximum security lockups in the country. It was not occupied until 1983, ten years after the buildings completion.
 The Trial Court has vacated the lower floors of the building and the State intends to disposition the building for private development once the jail
occupants are able to be relocated.
Major Issues:
 The facility contains friable asbestos fireproofing applied to the steel structure.
 The building is vacant except for the top four floors and the Jail sally port/receiving area on the ground level. Lack of maintenance of the buildings
systems is a critical issue. Keeping the entire building operating for a single occupant is extremely costly and inefficient.
 Life-safety is a critical concern because staff and inmates must be evacuated down over 16 stories of stairs in an emergency.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Replacement Jail
CAMIS Requested Projects: None.
Housing Capacity:
MIDDLESEX COUNTY JAIL - CAMBRIDGE
(Custody Level: Maximum/Minimum)
(Date Built: 1973; Date Occupied: 1983)

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS

161

Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 248 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

F
AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

(35SF per Inmate)

E

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

136
136

DAYROOM SF

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

TOILETS

(1:8 Inmates)

SHOWERS

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2)

SINKS

--

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

--

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

INMATES PER ROOM

274
274

D

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

(ACA Standard)

C

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B
SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

(Temp. Housing)

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

x

GENERAL POPULATION

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Middlesex County Jail

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

MAX No. of INMATES

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

MEN

161

369

161

Norfolk County Correctional Center
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

200 West Street
P.O. Box 149
Dedham, MA 02027
1990
Maximum, Medium, Pre-Release
154,500 gsf

Buildings
1. Main Building
1A HOC I
1B HOC II
1C Central unit
1D Jail
1E Segregation Unit
1F Sallyport
2. Pre-Release
3. Maintenance

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 249 -

140,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 604SDN0200

12,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 604SDN0202
2,500 gsf / CAMIS ID 604SDN0201

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Norfolk County Correctional Center
Description:
 The current Norfolk County Correctional Facility in Dedham was constructed on the median of Interstate I-95 and opened in 1990. The Main Building
is a steel frame structure with two level precast concrete housing units. The facility only houses male inmates. The gym has been turned into
temporary dorm housing.
 The Dedham Alternative Center with 128 beds is a two level pre-release facility located outside the secure perimeter.
 Administrative space is limited and staff share offices/cubicles.
 Inmates are feed in housing unit dayrooms.
 The Medical and Mental Health Services area is inadequate for the inmate population but is in good condition.
 The Library and adjacent four classrooms are in good condition.
 The site has very limited expansion capacity due to its location on the median strip of the interstate.
Major Issues:
 The electronic security systems are obsolete and difficult to maintain.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Housing Expansion
 Storage Warehouse
CAMIS Requested Projects:
FY 08 -- FY11 Deferred Maintenance Requests for Correction and Sherriffs Facilities
Site

Site Name

Building Name

Project Number

Project Description

SDN00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - NORFOLK

MAIN FACILITY

J000110213

REPLACE 2 CHILLERS

SDN00

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - NORFOLK

MAIN FACILITY

J000110217

REPLACE 2 BOILERS

PhaseDescription
REPLACE 2 CHILLERS PROJECT

- 250 -

Status

642,600 Requested
321,300 Requested

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

Est Cost

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

$963,900

Norfolk County Correctional Center
Housing Capacity:
NORFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER - DEDHAM
(Custody Level: Maximum/Medium/Pre-Release)
(Date Built: 1990)

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

20
11
21
30

24
16
32
40

840
?
675
874

24
?
19
25

96
96
48
48
64

49
49
25
25
6

10
10
8
8
5

49
49
25
25
10

80
80
64
64
36

2,185
2,185
1,106
1,106
1,880

62
62
32
32
54

24
16
19
25
--62
62
32
32
36

55

165

18

12

16

64

NA

NA

64

304

COMMENTS
Administration Seg.

IMPROVEMENTS

Add: 5 Sinks, 3 Showers **

24
20
19
25
--62
62
32
32
54

Add: 8 Sinks, 4 Showers

128

**

8 cells, 19 beds (not in count)
6 cells, 16 beds (not in count)

372

458

** = or Shower Controls

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 251 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

MAX No. of INMATES

3
2
4
5

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

DAYROOM SF

20
11
21
30

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

MAX No. of INMATES

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

60
20
40
60

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

744

TOILETS

3

30
10
20
30
8
6
48
48
24
24
1

(1:8 Inmates)

130

F

SHOWERS

128

E

SINKS

x

D

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

(ACA Standard)

C

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

2
2
2
2

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

INMATES PER ROOM

80
80
80
80

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

x
x
x
x
x
x

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

2
2
2
2

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

Dorms

(Temp. Housing)

(Temp. Housing)

Dedham Alt. Center (Pre-Release)

73
80
80
80

x

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B

60
10
40
62
--94
94
96
96
64

x
x
x
x

GENERAL POPULATION

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Dorm

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

UNIT

GENERAL POPULATION

Ad Seg
D-Iso
P-Max
P-Med
HSU
Intake
H1A
H1B
H2A
H2B
H3 (Gym Dorm)

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

(35SF per Inmate)

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2)

MEN

647

302

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 252 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Plymouth County Correctional Facility
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

26 Long Pond Road
Plymouth, MA
1994
Minimum, Medium & Maximum
245,464 gsf

Buildings

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 253 -

1. Plymouth HOC

351,537 gsf / CAMIS ID 720SDP0901

2. Vehicle Sally port

--

3. Admin Bldg (County)

49,630 gsf / CAMIS ID 720SDP0900

4. Warehouse/Correctional
Industries

13,886 gsf / CAMIS ID 720SDP0902

5. Warehouse/Canteen/K-9

20,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 720SDP0903

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Plymouth County Correctional Facility
Description:
 The Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth was opened in 1994 and is situated on 20 acres. It is the largest correctional facility under a
single roof in the Commonwealth. It is a steel framed structure with precast concrete cell housing units. It was designed to minimize inmate
movement by providing most services at the individual housing units. The facility currently houses male inmates from the County, DOC, Department
of Youth Services, Federal Marshalls Service, and ICE.
 Food is prepared in a Central Kitchen and transported to the housing units.
 A new warehouse was built outside the secure perimeter. The original warehouse built within the secure perimeter is only partially used for training
and could be repurposed.
 There is no minimum or pre-release housing for step-down/re-entry programs.
Major Issues:
 There are major problems with the housing shower units and security control panels.
 There are food service equipment and sewerage issues.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Pre-release Facility
 Regional Public Safety Training Center
CAMIS Requested Projects: None.

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 254 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Plymouth County Correctional Facility
Housing Capacity:
PLYMOUTH COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - PLYMOUTH
(Custody Level: Maximum/Medium/Minimum)
(Date Built: 1994)

(35SF per Inmate)

F

MAX No. of INMATES

7
7
7
7
70
70
14
14
14
14
70
70
14
14
14
14
10
10
7
7
70
70

E

DAYROOM SF

6

D

56

3,209

92

54

54

42
42
42
42
72
72
24
24
24
24
72
72
24
24
24
24
24
24
16
16
72
72

1,470
1,470
1,470
1,470
7,424
7,424
4,284
4,284
4,284
4,284
7,424
7,424
4,284
4,284
4,284
4,284
1,785
1,785
1,296
1,296
7,424
7,424

42
42
42
42
212
212
122
122
122
122
212
212
122
122
122
122
51
51
37
37
212
212

42
42
42
42
72
72
24
24
24
24
72
72
24
24
24
24
20
20
14
14
72
72

42
42
42
42
72
72
56
56
56
56
140
140
56
56
56
56
20
20
14
14
140
140

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS

1270

1140

4
7
7
7
7
7
9
9
3
3
3
3
9
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
9
9

6
7
7
7
7
70
70
14
14
14
14
70
70
14
14
14
14
10
10
7
7
70
70

586

Add: 4 Showers **
Add: 4 Showers **
Add: 4 Showers **
Add: 4 Showers **
Add: 9 Showers **
Add: 9 Showers **
Add: 4 Showers **
Add: 4 Showers **
Add: 4 Showers **
Add: 4 Showers **
Maximum Segregation
Maximum Segregation
Maximum Segregation
Maximum Segregation
Add: 9 Showers **
Add: 9 Showers **

914

1,442

** = or Shower Controls
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

1727

4

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

8
44
2
42
42
42
42
140
140
56
56
56
56
140
140
56
56
56
56
20
20
14
14
140
140

TOILETS

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

4
11
1
1
1
1
1
70
70
14
14
14
14
70
70
14
14
14
14
10
10
7
7
70
70

(1:8 Inmates)

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

2
4
2
42
42
42
42
2
2
4
4
4
4
2
2
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2

SHOWERS

INMATES PER ROOM

83
150
75
2049
2049
2049
2049
81
81
177
177
177
177
81
81
177
177
177
177
83
83
83
83
81
81

C

(1:6 Inmates)

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

4
48
2
60
54
60
52
139
139
62
62
62
62
139
139
62
62
62
62
39
39
24
15
139
139

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

GENERAL POPULATION

(Temp. Housing)

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Cell
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
A1 (Cells)
A1 (Dorms)
A1 (Dorms)
BN1 (Dorm)
BN2 (Dorm)
BS1 (Dorm)
BS2 (Dorm)
C1
C3
DN1
DN3
DS1
DS3
E1
E3
FN1
FN3
FS1
FS3
GNE
GNW
GSE
GSw
H1
H3

B

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

(ACA Standard)

A

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

SLEEPING SPACE

MAX No. of INMATES

WOMEN

SINKS

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

- 255 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 256 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Suffolk County House of Correction
Address:

200 Bradston Street
Boston, MA 02118

Year Opened:

1991

Security Levels:

Minimum, Medium &
Maximum

Sq. Footage:

565,642 gsf

Buildings

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 257 -

1. Building 1

192,050 gsf / CAMIS ID 551SDS0201

2. Building 2

21,012 gsf / CAMIS ID 551SDS0202

3. Building 3

168,568 gsf / CAMIS ID 551SDS0203

4. Building 4

51,420 gsf / CAMIS ID 551SDS0204

5. Building 5

64,254 gsf / CAMIS ID 551SDS0205

6. Building 6

23,988 gsf / CAMIS ID 551SDS0206

7. Control Tower
8. ICE Bldg.
(Modular)

--

9. Vehicle Trap

1,350 gsf / CAMIS ID 551SDS0207

43,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 551SDS0501

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Suffolk County House of Correction
Description:
 The current Suffolk County (South Bay) House of Correction is an eight building interconnected complex. It opened in 1991 to replace the Deer Island
House of Correction.
 Building 1 is a fourteen story building with eleven floors of inmate housing. There are many blind spots in these housing units. Roofing/mechanical
project is underway. There are no water supply shut-off valves for the showers from the 4th thru the 11th floor. Female housing units on the 11th floor
have “dry” cells.
 Building 2 is a two story structure containing administrative offices and staff functions. Roofing/building sealant/window replacement project is
underway. There are mechanical equipment issues
 Building 3 is a four story building with classrooms, library, laundry, and vocational space on the first floor. There is inmate housing on the second and
fourth floors. Classroom space is heavily used. The laundry equipment is original to the facility and it will be difficult to replace as the original
equipment was delivered disassembled prior to completion.
 Building 4 is a three story building with the inmate dining hall on the first floor and inmate housing on the upper two levels. Roofing/building
sealant/window replacement project is underway. There are mechanical equipment issues. The housing units have “dry” cells.
 Building 5 is a two story structure with the Kitchen and Canteen on the first floor and the inmate gym on the second floor. Roofing/building
sealant/window replacement project is underway. There are mechanical issues. Roll-up doors at the loading dock have issues.
 Building 6 is a two story building containing Booking and Property on the first floor and the Medical and Dental Services on the second floor.
Roofing/building sealant/window replacement project is underway. There are mechanical equipment issues.
 Building 7 is a three story structure adjacent to the Vehicle Trap and occupied by functions associated with it. There is no roof hatch to access roof
top HVAC units. There are mechanical equipment issues.
 Building 8 is a four level precast concrete modular structure with one floor of administrative space and three floors of dormitory inmate housing. The
housing units have “dry” cells. The building‟s structure is a precast concrete plank and wall system with metal stud and gypsum wall board infill. The
building was originally designed as a women‟s facility but was later used to house ICE detainees. The building opened in 2003.
Major Issues:
 Electronics for control panels are obsolete.
 Certain housing units have porcelain sinks and toilets in cells that should be replaced with stainless steel for security.
 There are no shut-off valves on water piping to isolate buildings.
 There are numerous broken security windows at the facility. The lack of any perimeter setback and the proximity of highways expose the facility to
threats such as drive-by shootings.
 HVAC and roofing needs replacement at numerous buildings. Current DCAM projects are underway
 Parking is a major issue due to the limited urban site.
 The site has extremely limited area for expansion.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 None
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 258 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Suffolk County House of Correction
CAMIS Requested Projects:
FY 08 -- FY11 Deferred Maintenance Requests for Correction and Sherriffs Facilities
Site

Site Name

Building Name

Project Number

SDS00

SUFFOLK COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS

BLDG #6 INFIRMARY

J000107562

SDS00

SUFFOLK COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS

BLDG #8 HOUSING

J000107566

SDS00

SUFFOLK COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS

BLDG #4 PRISON

J000107567

SDS00

SUFFOLK COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS

BLDG #4 PRISON

J000107570

SDS00

SUFFOLK COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS

BLDG #1 TOWER

SDS00

SUFFOLK COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS

SDS00

Project Description

PhaseDescription

J000107571

FY'08 CCTV SYSTEM FOR DEVER INFIRMARY @ HOC
SUFFOLK JAIL MODS STUDY-STRUCTURAL & MECHANICAL
PROBLEMS @ HOC
CONVERSION OF DRY CELLS TO WET CELLS, SOUTH BAY
HOC
PTZ AND FIXED CAMERAS MONITORING EXTERIOR OF HOC
PERIMETER
REPLACEMENT OF SECURITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT
HOC & NSJ

FY'08 CCTV SYSTEM FOR DEVER INFIRMARY @ HOC
SUFFOLK JAIL MODS - STRUCTURAL & MECHANICAL
PROBLEMS @ HOC
CONVERSION OF DRY CELLS TO WET CELLS, SOUTH
BAY HOC
PTZ AND FIXED CAMERAS MONITORING EXTERIOR OF
HOC PERIMETER
REPLACEMENT OF SECURITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT
HOC & NSJ

BLDG #2 ADMINISTRATION

J000109869

DIGITAL VIDEO RECORDERS (DVR) AT HOC

DIGITAL VIDEO RECORDERS (DVR) AT HOC

SUFFOLK COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS

BLDG #2 ADMINISTRATION

J000110433

COOLING SYSTEM FOR IT ROOM AT HOC

SDS00

SUFFOLK COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS

BLDG #5 SUPPORT SERVICES

J000110437

SDS00

SUFFOLK COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS

BLDG NO. 4 PRISON

J000107570

REPLACEMENT OF KITCHEN STEAM BOILERS AT HOC
FY'10 PTZ AND FIXED CAMERAS MONITORING EXTERIOR OF
HOC PERIMETER

FY'10 COOLING SYSTEM FOR IT ROOM AT HOC
FY'10 REPLACEMENT OF KITCHEN STEAM BOILERS AT
HOC
FY'10 PTZ AND FIXED CAMERAS MONITORING EXTERIOR
OF HOC PERIMETER

SDS00

SUFFOLK COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS

J000109845

FY'10 DEF MAINT - SHOWER RENOVATIONS AT HOC

SDS00

SUFFOLK COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS

J000110432

SDS00

SUFFOLK COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS

SDS00

SUFFOLK COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS

SDS00

SUFFOLK COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS

J000110436

FY'10 REPLACEMENT OF DOMESTIC HOT WATER BOILERS
FY'10 REPLACEMENT OF HOT WATER BOILER CLOSED LOOP
SYSTEM AT HOC
FY'10 REPLACEMENT OF 20 INTERIOR WATER SOURCE HEAT
PUMPS AT HOC
FY'10 REPAIR/REPLACE BYPASS SYSTEM FOR THE COOLING
TOWER AT HOC

FY'10 SHOWER RENOVATIONS AT HOC
FY'10 REPLACEMENT OF DOMESTIC HOT WATER
BOILERS
FY'10 REPLACEMENT OF HOT WATER BOILER CLOSED
LOOP SYSTEM
FY'10 REPLACE 20 INTERIOR WATER SOURCE HEAT
PUMPS AT HOC
FY'10 REPAIR/REPLACE BYPASS SYSTEM FOR THE
COOLING TOWER AT HOC

SDS00

SUFFOLK COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS

J000110438

FY'10 EPOXY FLOORING SYSTEM FOR KITCHEN AT HOC

FY'10 EPOXY FLOORING SYSTEM FOR KITCHEN AT HOC

BLDG NO. 5 SUPPORT
SERVICES
BLDG NO. 5 SUPPORT
SERVICES
BLDG NO. 5 SUPPORT
SERVICES
BLDG NO. 5 SUPPORT
SERVICES
BLDG NO. 5 SUPPORT
SERVICES

J000110434
J000110435

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 259 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Est Cost

Status

44,820 Requested
247,226 Requested
7,050,164 Requested
500,000 Requested
198,903 Requested
250,000 Requested
60,000 Requested
0 Requested
535,500 Requested
490,000 Requested
642,600 Requested
589,050 Requested
267,750 Requested
160,650 Requested
0 Requested
$11,036,663

Suffolk County House of Correction
Housing Capacity:
SUFFOLK COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTION - SOUTH BAY (BOSTON)
(Custody Level: Medium/Pre-Release)
(Date Built: 1991)

36
68
32
32
32
32
32
6
64
64
32
32
32
32
20
32

5
12
16
16
16
16
16
6
32
32
16
16
16
16
10
16

3
8
3
3
3
3
3
2
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
10
16
16
16
16
16
6
32
32
16
16
16
16
10
16

24
64
24
24
24
24
24
16
48
48
24
24
24
24
24
24

342
2,461
1,496
1,685
1,675
1,309
1,675
672
3,181
3,181
1,675
1,309
1,675
1,309
1,170
1,685

10
70
43
48
48
37
48
19
91
91
48
37
48
37
33
48

10
64
24
24
24
24
24
6
48
48
24
24
24
24
20
24

6
-36
36
180
180
180
180
72

72

1

6

6

6

1

6

8

568

16

72
72
70
70
70
70
123

2
2
2
2
2
2
3

16
16
64
64
64
64
24

32
32
128
128
128
128
72

1
1
64
64
64
64
2

3
3
11
11
11
11
12

3
3
64
64
64
64
16

6
6
88
88
88
88
12

1,496
1,685

43
48

36,296

1,037

6,653

190

6
-6
6
88
88
88
88
12

123
123

3
3

144
72

10
2

14
12

16
16

60
12

6,653
6,653

190
190

318
318
318
318

6
6
6
6

48
24
18
4
13
13
13
13

78
78
78
78

13
13
13
13

10
10
10
10

13
13
13
13

78
78
78
78

1,635
1,635
1,635
1,635

47
47
47
47

144
72
--75
75
75
75

1,983
733
** = or Shower Controls
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

60
12
--47
47
47
47
1,077

- 260 -

COMMENTS
Pre-release
Re-entry

IMPROVEMENTS
Add Shower**
Add: 1 Shower **
Add: 1 Shower **
Add: 1 Shower **
Add: 1 Shower **
Add: 1 Shower **

Max Seg Cells

Women
Women
Women Max Seg Cells
Women
Women Max Seg - Disciplinary
Unit-6 (Not In Count)
Infirmary
Women
Women

Currently Closed
Infirmary (Not In Count)
Not In Count

Add: 2 Showers **
Add: 2 Showers **
Add: 1 Showers **
Add: 1 Showers **
Add: 1 Showers **
Add: 1 Showers **
Add: 1 Showers **

Add: 5 Sinks
Add: 5 Sinks
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add 10 Sinks
Add 14 Sinks, 4 Showers **,
2 Toilets
Add: 10 Sinks

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

12
17
16
16
16
16
16
6
32
32
16
16
16
16
10
16

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

3
4
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

MAX No. of INMATES

106
125
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

DAYROOM SF

58
62
16
32
16
16
48
14
64
64
32
32
32
32
32
47

(1:8 Inmates)

MAX No. of INMATES

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

(Single - 35SF min unemcumbered

TOILETS

x
x
x
x

x

SHOWERS

x
x
x

F

SINKS

x
x
x
x
x

E

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

x
x

D

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

x

(ACA Standard)

C

INMATES PER ROOM

x
x
x
x

Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

(Temp. Housing)

x
x
x
x
x

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B

SQUARE
FEET

Dorm
Dorm
Cell
Cell
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm

x
x
x
x
x
x
x

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

4-2
4-3
6-2-1
Intake
8-1
8-2
8-3
8-4

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Dorm

GENERAL POPULATION

1-10-3
1-10-4
1-11-1
1-11-2
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
4-1

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Dorm
Dorm
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
1-1-1
1-2-1
1-3-1
1-3-2
1-4-1
1-4-2
1-5-1
1-5-2
1-6-1
1-6-2
1-8-1
1-8-2
1-9-1
1-9-2
1-10-1
1-10-2

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

(35SF per Inmate)

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

(1:6 Inmates)

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

1698

1146

10
64
32
32
32
32
32
6
48
48
32
32
32
32
20
32

6
-32
32
128
128
128
128
72
144
72
--47
47
47
47
1,574

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Suffolk County Jail
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

200 Nashua Street
Boston, MA 02114
1990
Maximum
342,316 gsf

Buildings
1. Suffolk County Jail
Gnd.
Kitchen/Laundry
1st Administration
2nd Visiting
Area/Chapel
3rd & 4th
Library/Classroom
5th Health
6th & 7th Gymnasium
1A West Housing
1B East Housing

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 261 -

342,316 gsf / CAMIS ID 551SDS9001

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Suffolk County Jail
Description:
 The current Suffolk County Jail-Nashua Street in Boston is a single multi-story steel framed structure on a small urban site which opened in 1990.
This facility is unique for its quality of design and materials. The facility has thirteen separate detainee housing units.
 The Food Service area is large and well maintained but has security issues with obstructed views. All meals are delivered to the housing units.
Kitchenettes in the housing units are no longer used and could be removed to provide space for other uses.
 The Health/Mental Health area appears to need additional administrative and waiting area space. Additional space is required for medical files.
 The facility does not offer educational programs. There is no library for inmate use.
 The site has no room for expansion.
 Parking is limited due to the urban site.
Major Issues:
 The exterior envelope has issues with sealant at windows failing and the insulated glazing fogging.
 Shower stalls require repair and upgrades. There are sewage backup issues in the restrooms of the outside administration area.
 The lack of a perimeter security fence allows contraband to be thrown onto exercise decks.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 None
CAMIS Requested Projects:
FY 08 -- FY11 Deferred Maintenance Requests for Correction and Sherriffs Facilities
Site

Site Name

Building Name

Project Number

Project Description

PhaseDescription

SDS01

SUFFOLK COUNTY JAIL

NASHUA STREET JAIL

J000105829

EMERGENCY REPLACEMENT OF FIRE ALARM - SDS

EMERGENCY REPLACEMENT OF FIRE ALARM @ HOC

SDS01

SUFFOLK COUNTY JAIL

NASHUA STREET JAIL

J000107523

REPAIRS TO ALBANY 670 RAPID ROLL GATE AT NSJ

REPAIRS TO ALBANY 670 RAPID ROLL GATE AT NSJ

SDS01

SUFFOLK COUNTY JAIL

NASHUA STREET JAIL

J000107572

REPLACEMENT FIRE ALARM SYSTEM @ NSJ

REPLACEMENT FIRE ALARM SYSTEM @ NSJ

SDS01

SUFFOLK COUNTY JAIL

NASHUA STREET JAIL

J000107575

ENVELOPE REPAIRS SUFFOLK JAIL AND HOC (NSJ)

ENVELOPE REPAIRS FOR NSJ

SDS01

SUFFOLK COUNTY JAIL

NASHUA STREET JAIL

J000107576

STEAM PRESSURE STUDY AT NSJ

STEAM PRESSURE STUDY OF 3 ESG'S AT NSJ

SDS01

SUFFOLK COUNTY JAIL

NASHUA STREET JAIL

J000109623

REPLACE 453 CELL LOCK MOTORS AND SWITCHES

SDS01

SUFFOLK COUNTY JAIL

NASHUA STREET JAIL

J000109624

REPLACE 453 CELL LOCK MOTORS AND SWITCHES
OVERHAUL D5B SALLPORT HIGH SECURITY SLIDER
OVERHAUL DSB SALLYPORT HIGH SECURITY SLIDER DOORS DOORS @ NSJ AND HOC
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 262 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Est Cost

Status

536,500 Requested
4,679 Requested
286,787 Requested
2,751,845 Requested
80,000 Requested
100,433 Requested
300,000 Requested
$4,060,244

Suffolk County Jail
Housing Capacity:
SUFFOLK COUNTY JAIL - NASHUA STREET (BOSTON)
(Custody Level: Medium)
(Date Built: 1990)

TOILETS

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SF

MAX No. of INMATES

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
22
40
34
34
40

34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
22
40
34
34
40

34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
22
40
34
34
40

4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
5

34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
22
40
34
34
40

32
40
32
40
32
40
32
40
32
40
32
40
40

2,314
2,632
2,314
2,632
2,314
2,632
2,314
2,632
2,314
2,632
2,314
2,632
2,266

66
75
66
75
66
75
66
75
66
75
66
75
65

777
442
** = or Shower Controls
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

F

32
34
32
34
32
34
32
34
22
40
32
34
40

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS
Add: 1 Shower **
Add: 1 Shower **
Add: 1 Shower **
Add: 1 Shower **

Add: 1 Shower **

432

- 263 -

713

453

34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
22
40
34
34
40
442

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

SHOWERS

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

SINKS

68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68
68

(1:8 Inmates)

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

E

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

(Single - 35SF min unemcumbered

Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

D

INMATES PER ROOM

67
64
64
66
72
72
68
68
22
60
46
46
62

C

SQUARE
FEET

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

GENERAL POPULATION

(Temp. Housing)

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
2-1
2-2
2-3
3-4
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
5-5
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4

B

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

(ACA Standard)

A

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

SLEEPING SPACE

(35SF per Inmate)

WOMEN

(1:6 Inmates)

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 264 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Worcester County Jail and House of Correction
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

5 Paul X. Tivnan Drive
West Boylston, MA 01583
1973
Maximum, Medium, Minimum, Prerelease, Awaiting Trial
375,581 gsf

Buildings
Southwestern Complex
1. Main Building
1A Max Security
Housing
1B Min Security
Housing
1C Dining Section
1D Gym, Medical,
Chapel
1E Control Section
1F School
1G A1/A2 (Addition to
Existing Bldg)
2. Stop M-5
3. Work Release
4. SEHV Service Bldg
5. Deignan Med. Security
6. Modular Gym
7. Modular Administration
8. Modular Warehouse/
VOC/Laundry
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 265 -

99,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB09

14,500 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB08
10,575 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB21
7,785 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB23
10,400 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB34
8,950 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB10
14,921 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB17
17,640 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB18

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

9. Visitors/Modular Receiving
10. “New” Programs
11. Condemned Bldg (Library)
12. Housing K & L
13. H Bldg Housing
14. Housing I & J
15. Storage – Barn
16. Storage – Barn
17. Sheriff‟s House/Almost Home
18. Shed (Vacant)
19. Shed (Vacant)
20. Shed (Vacant)
21. Community Service
22. Kennel
23. Emergency Command
Vehicle Garage
24. Switch House
25. Generator
26. Main Warehouse
27. Guard Tower
28. Property Trailer
Northeastern Complex
29. Special Need Annex
30. Wally‟s Garage
31. Min Security
32. Training Center

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 266 -

5,500 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB16
26,428 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB14
20,978 gsf
35,616 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB12
17,808 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB11
35,616 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB13
--4,790 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB28
---2,000 gsf
900 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB22
2,400 gsf / CAMIS ID 322PB25
1,150 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB31
8,500 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB06
1,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB07
684 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB20
14,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB32
2,350 gsf / CAMIS ID 322SDWPB04
6,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 321SDWPB29
5,600 gsf / CAMIS ID 321SDWPB28

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Worcester County Jail and House of Correction
Description:
 The current Worcester Jail and HOC was built in 1973 on the site of the Worcester County Hospital in West Boylston. The facility has 32 buildings of
varying ages on two complexes: a Southwestern Complex and a Northeastern Complex. The buildings range from wood farm structures to large
modular housing structures with precast concrete cells. The variety of construction types and different MEP systems creates maintenance
challenges.
 There is a Federal Court ordered limit of 1251 inmates and the facility houses only male inmates.
 The site contains several areas suitable for expansion.
Southwestern Complex
 The Main Building is a cast in place concrete structure containing the main lobby & control, visitation, “outside” administrative areas, HOC intake,
kitchen services, and HOC inmate housing units. Former inmate dining areas and the kitchen are in transition. The kitchen and HVAC equipment is
mostly older units and problematic. Pneumatic temperature controls are largely inoperative.
 Building 5/Deignan Medium Security was originally a two story split level minimum security structure with wood doors. The construction of the
Modular campus forced the conversion of the building to a higher security level it was not designed to accommodate.
 In 1990, nine “modular” buildings were added to the Southwestern Complex by extending the perimeter security fence. This group of buildings was
designed to house the Jail population and operate as a self-contained unit. This resulted in redundancy with two kitchens, two intakes, two medical
areas, etc.
 The Modular housing units are contained in three buildings: Building 12/Housing K & L, Building 13/H Housing, and Building 14/Housing I & J. These
are two story structures with precast concrete cells and a cast-in-place concrete entrance and control core.
 Building 10/New Programs is a Modular structure housing Medical Services on the second floor and a former kitchen area on the first floor which is
vacant due to a number of issues.
 Building 11/Library is a Modular structure which is vacant due to a number of issues including the roof structure. Rooftop mechanical units and other
building systems have been cannibalized.
Northeastern Complex
 Building 31/Minimum Security was the Nurse‟s Building for the County Hospital. It was built in 1934 and has been converted to a minimum security
housing unit. It is not presently occupied due to budgetary issues.
 The Annex Building is a slab-on-grade steel framed metal panel structure built in 2000 and provides dormitory housing. It is located in the
Northeastern Complex.
Major Issues:
 Many of the buildings including the Modular buildings have EFIS cladding which is failing or has failed. At a minimum, damaged areas need to be
repaired and all joints re-sealed. Replacement of the EFIS system in certain areas should be considered.
 HVAC equipment and controls are in failing or failed condition. Design / Construction drawings for are complete for the original 1974 buildings.
 Fire alarm project is underway to provide a new system.
 There are structural issues with the roofs of the modular buildings 7,9,10 and 11.
 Accessibility improvements are required.
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 267 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Worcester County Jail and House of Correction
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Modular Replacements
 Housing Expansion
CAMIS Requested Projects:
FY 08 -- FY11 Deferred Maintenance Requests for Correction and Sherriffs Facilities
Site

Site Name

Building Name

Project Number

Project Description

PhaseDescription

SDW00 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WORCESTER

MAIN JAIL (MAIN ADMIN)

J000107132

FY08 REPLACE CELL DOOR MECHANISMS

FY08 REPLACE CELL DOOR MECHANISMS

SDW00 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - WORCESTER

BARN

J000109705

WORK RELEASE BUILDING

J000110455

PAVING PROJECT
SHOWER RENOVATIONS MODULAR FACILITY / WORK
RELEASE

PAVING PROJECT

SDW00 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - WORCESTER
SDW00 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - WORCESTER

INTAKE BUILDING

J000109704

FY '09 ROOF PROJECT

ROOF PROJECT

SHOWER RENOVATION

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 268 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

Est Cost

Status

1,460,000 Requested
250,000 Requested
60,000 Requested
348,075 Requested
$2,118,075

Worcester County Jail and House of Correction
Housing Capacity:
WORCESTER COUNTY JAIL & HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS - WEST BOLYSTON
(Custody Level: Maximum/Medium/Minimum/Pre-Release/Awaiting Trial)
(Date Built: 1973)

MAX No. of INMATES

64
64
48
64
64
32
48
80
80
80
80
80
18

1,200
1,200
3,600
7,000
1,078
5,050
NA
7,820
15,641
NA *
15,641
NA *
?

34
34
103
200
31
144
NA
223
447
NA *
447
NA *
?

34
34
48
64
31
18
48
80
80
80
80
80
15

66

6

5

4

36

?

?

36
-84
---

3
120

22
1

120

23

15

15

120

694

2,941

84

COMMENTS

Maximum Custody

IMPROVEMENTS

Add 8 Showers **
Add: 6 Showers **

Add: 6 Sinks, 4 Toilets
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Sinks, 2 Showers **, 5
Toilets

790

66
84

7 cells single bunked (not in count)
12 recently released (not in count)

812

- 269 -

1211

34
34
104
104
31
18
80
120
120
120
120
120
15

Dorm Offline (not in count)

1,170

* = Dayroom used on the first floor of 2-level facility
** = or Shower Controls
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

DAYROOM SF

32
32
104
104
16
18
6
60
60
60
60
60
3

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

MAX No. of INMATES

8
8
6
8
8
4
10
10
10
10
10
10
3

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

TOILETS

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

SHOWERS

32
32
104
104
16
18
8
60
60
60
60
60
3

(1:8 Inmates)

SINKS

64
64
104
104
128
18
80
120
120
120
120
120
15

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

1310

5477

F

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

131

E

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

44
-100
---

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

x
x
x
x

D

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

(ACA Standard)

C

2
32
2
32
1
104
1
104
2
64
1
18
6 to 7 12
2
60
2
60
2
60
2
60
2
60
3
5

INMATES PER ROOM

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

84
84
56
56
73
69
235
75
75
75
75
75
124

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

(Temp. Housing)

Cell
Dorm
Dorm
Cell

51
64
104
104
128
26
80
119
119
119
119
119
14

GENERAL POPULATION

Min Sec. Facility - B-Floor (Offline)
Min Sec. Facility - C-Floor (Offline)
Min Sec Facility Annex
CLU
Sheriff's House/Almost Home

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Admin Bldg - A-1
Admin Bldg - A-2
Admin Bldg - Max Sec A
Admin Bldg - Min Sec. B
Deignan Bldg (Minimum Security)
Mini - 5 (M-5)
Work Release Bldg
Housing Unit H
Housing Unit I/J - I Unit
Housing Unit I/J - J Unit
Housing Unit K/L - K Unit
Housing Unit K/L - L Unit
Min Sec. Facility - A-Floor (Offline)

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

(35SF per Inmate)

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2)

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 270 -

CMP: Appendix A - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan
The Final Report

Appendix B
Department of Correction
Existing Facility Briefs

Appendix B - Department of Correction Existing Facility Briefs

- 271 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

HOUSING CAPACITY TABLE LEGEND
Capacity Criteria
Sleeping Space: ACA Standard
Single @ 35 Unencumbered SF
Double @ 50 Unencumbered SF or 70 SF Total
Dorm @ 25 SF per inmate
Capacity Criteria
Plumbing Fixtures: MA Plumbing Code
Sinks @ 1 per 6 inmates
Showers @ 1 per 8 inmates
Toilets @ 1per 8 Males / 1 per 6 Females

PLUMBING FIXTURES

DAYROOM SPACE

(ACA Standard)

(Mass Plumbing Code)

(ACA Standard)

MAX No. of INMATES

8
16
16
8

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA

4
16
16
4

Room

x

50

120

3

25

75

6

7

8

48

NA

NA

48

Room

x

54

120

3

25

75

6

7

8

48

NA

NA

48

Double B1
Double B2

175

100

** = or Shower Controls
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

DAYROOM SF

2
6
6
2

(35SF per Inmate)

MAX No. of INMATES

1
3
3
1

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

TOILETS

1
2
2
1

(1:8 Inmates)

SHOWERS

4
46
46
4

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2)

2
23
23
2

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

2
2
2
2

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

85
70
70
85

GENERAL POPULATION

2
23
44
2

TYPE
Room
Room
Room
Room

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

x
x
x
x

UNIT
HC D1
Single D1
Single D2
HC D2

GENERAL POPULATION

SINKS

F

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

E

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

D

INMATES PER ROOM

C

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

B

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

(Temp. Housing)

A

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS
Add: 3 Sinks, 2 Showers **
Add: 3 Sinks, 2 Showers **
Add: 4 Sinks, 3 Showers **, 2
Toilets
Add: 4 Sinks, 3 Showers **, 2
Toilets

136

Red numbers
indicate limiting criteria that yields the
CMP Baseline Capacity
for the housing unit – See pg 43 for
more information

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 272 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

189

150

4
40
40
4
75
75
238

Potential Capacity - possible increase
in bedspaces with improvements; if no
improvements were identified, Potential
Capacity = CMP Baseline Capacity –
See pg.44 for more information

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

SLEEPING SPACE

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

WOMEN

Capacity Criteria
Dayroom Space: ACA Standard
35 SF per inmate

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

MEN

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

Current Beds:
Number of beds identified
during 2009 Site Visit excluding
non-traditional / temporary
beds; Current bed count varys
to accommodate ADP

Design Capacity
See pg.39 for more
information

Bay State Correctional Center
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

28 Clark Street
Norfolk, MA 02056
1977
Medium
219,117 gsf

Buildings
1. Kitchen/Gym
2. Visitor Bldg.
3. Housing
4. Admin./Programs
5. Gate House/Lobby/Sally port
6. Grounds Storage
7. Property Bldg.
8. Modular Housing
9. Storage Bldg.
10. Water Tower

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 273 -

7,080 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB12
(Kitchen)
5,040 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB10 (Gym)
6,972 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB20
75,762 gsf / CAMISID 625DOCPB13
32,754 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB83
11,312 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB02
-1,426 gsf / CAMISID 625DOCPB16
74,496 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB15
660 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB19
--

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Bay State Correctional Center
Description:
 The original stone façade building opened in 1977 as a minimum security facility for 72 male inmates. There have been two subsequent expansions;
one in the 1980‟s expanded the main building and a second in the early 1990‟5 converted the facility to medium security by adding a perimeter fence
and three Type II modular wood structures - gatehouse, visiting building and a 2 story housing unit.
 The facility currently has 266 beds in double or single bunked cells. There is no triple bunking. Each floor has a dayroom, although only 20 inmates are
allowed in the dayroom at a time. Cell windows are operable.
 All food service is provided in a main dining room. Kitchen is in fair condition, but lack of adequate storage limits opportunities to buy discount volumes.
 Medical services do not provide space for overnight care. Inmates must be transported to outside medical facilities.
 There are many vocational programs available at the facility. There is a shortage of counseling space and there are limitations expand programs.
There is an adequate gym with a separate lifting room.
 As part of a 1042 acre complex that includes 3 other DOC facilities, there is room for expansion outside of the perimeter fence.
 Parking is adequate.
 All Cells are dry.
 The water supply is restricted but can be remedied with connection to the municipal water supply. See MCI Cedar Junction.
Major Issues:
 The modular buildings are deteriorating and present increasing operational problems.
 There is inadequate storage.
 All housing doors are manually operated
 Envelope repair is needed: Leaking roofs, rusted exterior doors and frames, leaking windows, facades need repointing.
 The facility is located adjacent to wetland. The high groundwater table is an issue. Underground conduits for wiring & security are problematic.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Modular Replacement

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 274 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Bay State Correctional Center
CAMIS Requested Projects:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
PRI

TYPE

2
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
5

Security
Expansion
Clean State
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

PROJECT
Renovate vehicle trap gates
Replace Modular Unit w/Perm. Housing (150 beds)
Grease Trap at Main building
Replace Doors and windows in Modular Unit
Perimeter Security Improvements
Replace Roofs
Replace Roof top units (HVAC)
Repair Windows and Add Security Screens
Upgrade Laundry Services
Warehouse, Storage Building
Expand and Improve Industries/Program Building
Road Repaving

FACILITY

N0

Bay State
Bay State
Bay State
Bay State
Bay State
Bay State
Bay State
Bay State
Bay State
Bay State
Bay State
Bay State/CTU

J000111140

COMMENTS

COST

J000109527
J000111123
J000109528
J000109529
J000109531

Mod Unit, Visiting Room, Gatehouse, Main Bldg.

J000111125
J000109535
J000109532
J000109533
J000109534
J000109536

(in years)

$75,000
$20,000,000
$150,000
$450,000
$225,000
$2,000,000
$125,000
$1,400,000
$140,000
$250,000
$150,000
$350,000

4
1.5
1.5
2
2
1
2
2
1

$25,315,000

Housing Capacity:
BAY STATE CORRECTIONAL CENTER - NORFOLK
(Custody Level: Medium)
(Date Built: 1977)

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SF

MAX No. of INMATES

10

8

10

64

1,200

34

F

34

COMMENTS
Normally Single Bunked

IMPROVEMENTS

Normally Single Bunked

8

10

64

1,200

34

34

10
20

8
20

10
20

64
120

1,200
2,249

34
64

34
64

34
64

166

166

266

Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 275 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

314

266

34

10

(MW) = Modular/Wood Building

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

318

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

14
82
16
82
98
360

E

TOILETS

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

7
41
8
41
49
120

(1:8 Inmates)

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

2
2
2
2
2
3

D

SHOWERS

INMATES PER ROOM

97
77
97
77
77
134

C

(1:6 Inmates, I-3)

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

7
47
8
49
55
152

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

GENERAL POPULATION

(Temp. Housing)

x
x
x
x
x
x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Main Bldg - 1st floor (HC)
Main Bldg - 1st floor (Typ)
Main Bldg - 2nd floor (HC)
Main Bldg - 2nd floor (Typ)
Main Bldg - 3rd floor (Typ)
Modular - 1st & 2nd floor (MW)

B

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

(ACA Standard)

A

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

SLEEPING SPACE

(35SF per Inmate)

WOMEN

SINKS

MEN

34

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 276 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Boston Pre-release Center
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

430 Canterbury Street
Roslindale, MA 02131
2004
Minimum, Pre-release
45,818 gsf

Buildings
1. Main Building
1A Pre-Release Wing
1B Minimum Security
Wing
2. Storage Building
3. Generator Building

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 277 -

45,460 gsf / CAMIS ID 551DOC0301

142 gsf / CAMIS ID 551DOC0601
216 gsf / CAMIS ID 551DOC0602

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Boston Pre-release Center
Description:
 The Boston Pre-release Center is a slab-on-grade, two-story concrete masonry block structure, constructed on a 4 acre level site.. The site and an
adjacent Department of Youth Services facility were part of the former Boston State Hospital. The facility has 175 beds in dry double or triple bunked
rooms. The facility is in excellent condition.
 There is adequate parking and site lighting.
 The interior, exterior, HVAC and electrical systems are in excellent condition and are well maintained.
 There is sufficient space for expansion on adjacent Commonwealth property.
 There is insufficient program and storage space for the current inmate count.
Major Issues:
 None
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 20‟ x 20‟ Storage Shed
CAMIS Requested Projects:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
TYPE
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

PROJECT
Renovate showers
Frost Heave repairs

FACILITY
Boston Pre-Release
Boston Pre-Release

N0

COMMENTS

J000111129
J000111130

COST
(in years)
$180,000
$75,000

$255,000

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 278 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Boston Pre-release Center
Housing Capacity:
BOSTON PRE-RELEASE CENTER - ROSLINDALE
(Custody Level: Minimum/Pre-Release)
(Date Built: 2004)
DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

(ACA Standard)

MAX No. of INMATES

8
16
16
8

NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA

4
16
16
4

Room

x

50

120

3

25

75

6

7

8

48

NA

NA

48

Room

x

54

120

3

25

75

6

7

8

48

NA

NA

48

Double B1
Double B2

175

100

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

DAYROOM SF

2
6
6
2

(35SF per Inmate)

MAX No. of INMATES

1
3
3
1

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

TOILETS

1
2
2
1

(1:8 Inmates)

SHOWERS

4
46
46
4

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2)

2
23
23
2

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

2
2
2
2

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

85
70
70
85

GENERAL POPULATION

2
23
44
2

TYPE
Room
Room
Room
Room

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

x
x
x
x

UNIT
HC D1
Single D1
Single D2
HC D2

GENERAL POPULATION

SINKS

F

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

E

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

D

INMATES PER ROOM

C

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

B

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

(Temp. Housing)

A

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS
Add: 3 Sinks, 2 Showers **
Add: 3 Sinks, 2 Showers **
Add: 4 Sinks, 3 Showers **, 2
Toilets
Add: 4 Sinks, 3 Showers **, 2
Toilets

136

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 279 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

189

150

4
40
40
4
75
75
238

** = or Shower Controls
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

SLEEPING SPACE

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

WOMEN

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 280 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Bridgewater State Hospital
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

Bridgewater Complex
Bridgewater, MA
1974
Medium
171,966 gsf

Buildings
1. Maximum Building I
2. Maximum Building II
3. Medical Building
4. Gate House
5. Administration Building
6. Dormitory A
7. Dormitory B
8. Dormitory C
9. Commons Building/Recreation
10. Commons Building /MultiPurpose
11. Observation Tower
12. Minimum End Treatment
13. Gym/Building #13 (Part of
Core Services)
14. Maximum End Treatment
15. Pavilion
16. Southeastern Corr. Ctr. &
Power Plant

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 281 -

7,800 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB60
7,800 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB61
12,500 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB53
800 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB54
22,400 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB51
18,050 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB55
18,050 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB56
18,050 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB57
43,300 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB59
-6,480 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB58
4,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB04
9,384 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB52
2,400 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB65
--

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Bridgewater State Hospital
Description:
 Bridgewater State Hospital is the state‟s only behavioral forensic facility, which is classified as a psychiatric hospital. It houses the criminally insane
who are not guilty by reason of insanity and convicted criminal offenders who possess varying types and degrees of mental disorders or illness that
prevent them from being held in a general population prison. A portion of the population is geriatric, requiring special care.
 Bridgewater State Hospital was opened in 1974 to replace an older facility constructed in 1880 (the former Southeastern Correctional Center). The
facility has a large fenced open campus with multiple buildings connected by exposed sidewalks. Inmates must walk to all programs and the central
dining area subject to adverse weather conditions. The open campus is not compatible for this type of inmate population.
 Most of the buildings are circa 1974, steel framed, masonry and concrete, or masonry and metal panel structures.
 Two buildings (circa 1989) are Type II modular wood structures in poor condition. Two additions to the Main Administration building were made in
1989. They are Type II modular wood structures in poor to failing condition.
Major Issues:
 Envelope repairs needed: exterior doors, roof replacement for most buildings, modular exterior walls, replacement of any remaining jalousie windows.
 Considerable repairs and upgrades are required as listed in CAMIS Deferred Maintenance Requests.
 Inadequate space for: storage, administrative offices, patient/staff meeting space, lobby/waiting area, staff conference/classroom space, facility
maintenance space, intake.
 Modular administrative buildings are deteriorating: roof and window leaks, floor structural issues, exterior siding falling off.
 Inadequate bathroom facilities in staff areas.
 The gym/recreation building is prone to sewage back-ups.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Maintenance Shed
 Modular Replacements
 Medium Security Sub-Acute Facility
CAMIS Requested Projects: (Continued on Next Page)
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
PRI
3
3

Proj
TYPE
Clean State
Clean State

PROJECT
SECC Demolition
Mold Remediation

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FACILITY
SECC
SECC

- 282 -

CAMIS
N0

COMMENTS

J000109590

Portion of systems shut down.

J000109594

Unoccupied areas.

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

EST.
DURATION
COST
(in years)
$30,000,000
4
$175,000
1
$30,175,000

Bridgewater State Hospital
CAMIS Requested Projects: (Continued)
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
PRI

TYPE

2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5

Security
Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
DPH Required
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

PROJECT
Razor wire and fence repair
Clean and Paint Elevated Water Tanks
UST Leak Detection/Repair
Fuel Tank Detection System
Grease Trap at Kitchen Warehouse
Booster Pump Station Repairs
WWTP Upgrades
Automatic Backwash Sand Filters
Ultraviolet Disinfection
Effluent Piping to Taunton River
Pip fr Effluent Pol. Pond to Biosolid Thickening Equip
Upgr. Influ Screen equip. if nec to handle Additional TSS
Upgrade facility if necessary to handle additional BOD
Kitchen/Warehouse flooring
Replace/Repair Boiler #01
Replace/Repair Boiler #02
Administration Building Roof Replacement
Warren Hall Roof Replacement
Replace Air Handlers and Heating Coils
All exterior Housing Unit Doors (app 30)
Max Mod. Roof replacement
Min. Mod. Roof replacement
Mod-B/Records Roof Replacement
Mod-A/Ad. Roof Replacement
Commons/7-Upper Roof - Replacement
Talbot House Basement water-proofing
Talbot House Roof Repair
Core Services Response House Roof Replacement
Core Services Central Warehouse Roof Replacement
Core Services New Pump House Roof Replacement
Power Plant Roof Replacement
Replace rooftop modular heat pump/AC units
Replace Exterior Siding Trim/Apron on all Mod Bldgs.
Tel/Com Data Link
Metal structure repairs at toilet fixture walls
Rated glazing in smoke barriers
Repair/Upgrade Muffin Monster
Replace Hot Water Sysem Medical and Max 1
Replace Commons Bldg Gym Roof/Exhaust Fans
Sewer Treatment Plant Shed Roof Replacement
Sewer Treatment Plant Roof Repair
Construct New Maintenance Shed
Replace Commons Gym Floor
Core Services Incinerator Building Roof Replacement
Old Pump House Roof Replacement
Max/Observation Unit-Need Doors/Frames

FACILITY

N0

Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater Complex
Bridgewater WPCF
Bridgewater WPCF
Bridgewater WPCF
Bridgewater WPCF
Bridgewater WPCF
Bridgewater WPCF
Bridgewater Complex
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridge/Shir/Conc/Norf
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater
Bridgewater

J000111132

COMMENTS

J000109540

2 Tanks - under ACO

J000109543

Location at Pow er Plant.

J000109544
J000109541
J000109542
J000109545
J000109546
J000109547
J000109548

betw een $1M and $1.5M

J000109549
J000109550
J000109551
J000111136
J000111201

Critical

J000111202

Critical

J000109613
J000105564
J000109553
J000105554
J000111137
J000111138
J000109614
J000109616
J000105491

see 558

J000111135
J000105519
J000105537
J000105542
J000105555
J000105557
J000109561
J000109562
J000109603

WWTP & Water Systems

J000111133
J000111134
J000109555
J000109557
J000109558
J000105558
J000105561
J000109560

At BSH and Bridgew ater WPCF

J000109563
J000105556
J000105567
J000109564

Need Accurate Count

COST
$20,000
$2,000,000
$60,000
$125,000
$450,000
$50,000
$4,000,000
$1,750,000
$175,000
$1,500,000
$50,000
$90,000
$3,500,000
$250,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$11,200
$200,000
$225,000
$75,000
$25,000
$25,000
$11,200
$11,200
$316,809
$75,000
$35,329
$8,500
$600,000
$9,600
$154,000
$200,000
$180,000
$250,000
$15,000
$150,000
$15,000
$15,000
$200,000
$7,200
$7,500
$10,000
$80,000
$4,500
$2,500
$1,200,000

$20,139,538

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 283 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

(in years)
2
1
1
1.5
1
4
4
2
4
1
1
4
2

1
1
2
1

1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2

Bridgewater State Hospital
Housing Capacity:
BRIDGEWATER STATE HOSPITAL - BRIDGEWATER
(Custody Level: Medium)
(Date Built: 1974)

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

4
4
4
4
4

1,107

31

31

32

1,107

31

31

32

1,107

31

31

32

1,107

31

31

32

1,107

31

31

32

1,107

31

31

32
32

1,260
1,260

36
36

32
32

x
x
x
x
x
394

232

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS

227

31
31
31
31

Normally Single Bunked
Normally Single Bunked
Not in Count (Temp. Housing)
Not in Count (Temp. Housing)
Not in Count (Temp. Housing)
Not in Count (Temp. Housing)
Not in Count (Temp. Housing)

Add: 1 Shower **
Add: 1 Shower **

250

- 284 -

346

31

31
36
36

258

** = or Shower Controls
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

32

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

4

F
AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

4

23
5
23
5
23
5
23
5
23
5
23
5
32
32

E

MAX No. of INMATES

4

(35SF per Inmate)

23
5
23
5
23
5
23
5
23
5
23
5
32
32

D

DAYROOM SF

44
36
44
36
44
36
44
36
44
36
44
36
64
64

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

22
6
22
6
22
6
22
6
22
6
22
6
32
32

TOILETS

2
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
2

(1:8 Inmates)

83
309
83
309
83
309
83
309
83
309
83
309
83
83

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

22
33
22
33
22
33
22
33
22
33
22
33
32
32

SHOWERS

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

GENERAL POPULATION

SINKS

x
x

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

Max 1
Max 2
Medical Dorm - Single Rm
Medical Dorm - Multi-Rm
Medical Dorm - At-Risk
Medical Dorm - Lock-up
Medical Dorm - Restraint

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

C-2

INMATES PER ROOM

C-1

(ACA Standard)

C

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

B-2

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

B-1

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

A-2

TYPE
Cell
Dorm
Cell
Dorm
Cell
Dorm
Cell
Dorm
Cell
Dorm
Cell
Dorm
Cell
Cell
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
A-1

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

MAX No. of INMATES

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

(1:6 Inmates)

MEN

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Massachusetts Alcohol and Substance Abuse
Center
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

2 Admin Road
Bridgewater, MA
1992
Medium
45,957 gsf

Buildings
1. Maintenance Building #8
2. Administration Building #5
3. Bravo 1 & 2 Housing Unit Bldg
#1
4. Charlie 1 & 2 Housing Unit Bldg
#2
5. Delta 1 & 2 Housing Unit Bldg #4
6. Alpha 1 & 2 Housing Unit Bldg #3
7. Dining Room/Intake Area Bldg
8. Gate House
9. Waste Water Treatment Plant-

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 285 -

2,380 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB13
10,800 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB09
5,.376 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB03
5,.376 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB06
5,.376 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB08
5,.376 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB07
9,600 gsf / CAMIS ID715DOCPB11
1,053 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOC0701
126,986 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOC9244

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Massachusetts Alcohol and Substance Abuse Center
Description:
 The facility was designed as a juvenile boot camp in 1992 and is organized like a military base with four barracks units, an administration/programs
building, and an intake/dining building within a security perimeter.
 It was constructed on a flat sit next to wetlands. Buildings are of two construction types:1) metal panel exterior with standing seam metal roof, or 2) tent
structure, having aluminum ribs with a coated poly-fabric cover.
 The facility is responsible for providing security for an adjacent waste treatment facility that serves the larger Bridgewater correctional complex.
 The facility receives water, steam, and sanitary sewer as part of the Bridgewater complex.
Major Issues:
 The tensile fabric skin on the intake/dining building and the maintenance building require replacement.
 All buildings are in marginal condition: leaking roofs and related interior problems, HVAC issues, undersized hot water heater.
 The size of the control center, intake, health services, mental health services, laundry, and program space are inadequate for the population served.
 There are inadequate spaces for confidential consultation with medical/mental health staff.
 The kitchen equipment is inadequate and is in poor condition. The floor needs replacement and there are plumbing problems (drains).
 All wiring is underground and in constant contact with the high water table.
 The perimeter lighting and security cameras are insufficient.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Housing Unit / Program Space Expansion
 Dining Room / Intake Building Replacement
 Maintenance Building #8 Replacement
CAMIS Requested Projects:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
PRI
2
2
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5

TYPE
Security
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

PROJECT
Perimeter Fence Upgrades and lightning
HVAC Improvements
Intake Building Roof Replacement
Maintenance Building Roof Replacement
Bravo Bldg. Roof Replacement
Charlie Bldg. Roof Replacement
Alpha Bldg. Roof Replacement
Delta Bldg. Roof Replacement
Administration Building Roof Replacement
Gate House Building Roof Replacement

FACILITY
MASAC
MASAC
MASAC
MASAC
MASAC
MASAC
MASAC
MASAC
MASAC
MASAC

N0

COMMENTS

J000109493
J000109495
J000105505
J000105507
J000105499
J000105501
J000105502
J000105502
J000105504
J000105506

COST
(in years)
$800,000
2
$425,000
1.5
$200,000
1
$200,000
1
$107,520
1
$107,520
1
$107,520
1
$107,520
1
$230,407
1.5
$1,500
1

$1,486,987

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 286 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Massachusetts Alcohol and Substance Abuse Center
Housing Capacity:
MASSACHUSETTS ALCOHOL & SUBSTANCE ABUSE CENTER - BRIDGEWATER
(Custody Level: Minimum)
(Date Built: 1992)

236

12

1,470
1,470
1,470

42
42
42

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS

- 287 -

139

236

42
42
42

42
42
42

187

5

5

5

856

24

19

19

150

150

Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

72
72
72
36
24
36

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

MAX No. of INMATES

12
12
12
6
4
6

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

TOILETS

12
12
12
6
-6

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

SHOWERS

12
12
12
6
4
6

F

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

SINKS

42
42
42
4
8
19

E

(35SF per Inmate)

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

2
2
2
4
1
1

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

21
21
21
1
8
19

(1:8 Inmates)

INMATES PER ROOM

2520
2520
2520
120
640
1120

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

64
64
64
4
8
32

D

MAX No. of INMATES

(ACA Standard)

C

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

GENERAL POPULATION

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

x
x
x
x
x
x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

Barracks D (Delta) 2

TYPE
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Cell
Dorm
Dorm

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Barracks A (Alpha) 1 & 2
Barracks B (Bravo) 1 & 2
Barracks C (Charlie) 1 & 2
Barracks D (Delta) 1

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

DAYROOM SF

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

(1:6 Inmates)

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 288 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Massachusetts Treatment Center
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

Bridgewater Complex
Bridgewater, MA
1986
Medium
236,982 gsf

Buildings

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 289 -

1. Treatment Center

126,986 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOC9244

2. Gradual Release Unit

4,860 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOC9235

3. 300 Bed Modular Housing

46,136 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB50

4. Central Kitchen/Warehouse
(Part of Core Services)

57,600 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOPB17

5. Bldg #19

1,400 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB67

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Massachusetts Treatment Center
Description:
 The facility opened in 1986 under the department of Mental Health and was transferred to DOC in 1995. The main building is a mega-structure built of
masonry, concrete and steel with all housing, programs, and support areas in a single building. The facility is in good condition and well designed for
its purpose.
 A precast concrete modular facility was built in 1997 to expand capacity. It was constructed with tilt-up concrete and plank floor construction. It is in fair
to good condition.
 “Patients” committed to the facility under civil law, must be kept separate from “inmates” serving a criminal sentence.
 This facility uses the Bridgewater Central Kitchen for most food preparation. Prepared food is transported to the MTC kitchen and is then served at two
adjacent dining areas. The facility also utilizes the Bridgewater central storage facility.
 This facility has an extensive vocational program area but it does not have adequate ventilation.
 A courtroom was built as part of the original design, but is not being used as a courtroom.
 There is space adjacent to the facility for expansion.
 The modular dormitory building consists of 6 bunk dorm rooms and gang-style toilet/shower rooms. This design presents potential issues for housing
this population.
Major Issues:
 Toilet/Shower rooms in the modular building are in poor condition.
 The closure of the facility‟s pre-release/transitional housing inhibits the supervised transition of offenders prior to release.
 Any expansion of the number of beds will require additional program and infrastructure spaces.
 Several roofs require replacement.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 None
CAMIS Requested Projects: None.

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 290 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Massachusetts Treatment Center
Housing Capacity:
MASSACHUSETTS TREATMENT CENTER - BRIDGEWATER
(Custody Level: Medium)
(Date Built: 1986)

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SF

MAX No. of INMATES

54
54
54
54
52

8
8
8
8
44

54
54
54
54
44

64
64
64
64
312

3,472
3,472
3,472
3,472
5,647

99
99
99
99
161

579

268

64
64
64
64
161

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **

417

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 291 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

627

561

99
99
99
99
161

557

** = or Shower Controls
(MC) = Modular/Wood Building
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

TOILETS

108
108
108
108
260

F
AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

SHOWERS

54
54
54
54
52

(35SF per Inmate)

SINKS

2
2
2
2
5

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

75
75
75
75
330

(1:8 Inmates)

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

54
54
54
105
312

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

INMATES PER ROOM

E

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

D

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

(ACA Standard)

C

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

GENERAL POPULATION

(Temp. Housing)

x
x
x
x
x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Unit A
Unit B
Unit C
Unit D
Dorm (MC)

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

(1:6 Inmates)

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 292 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Cedar Junction
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

P.O. Box 100
Route 1A
South Walpole, MA
1955
Maximum, Medium
687,485 gsf

Buildings
1. Administration Building
2. Main Building
3. Housing
4. HSU
5. Orientation Modular Bldg
6. DDU Housing Unit
7. Industries Building
8. Foundry (Abandoned)
9. Old Weight Station
10. K-9 Building
11. Garage
12. Power Plant
13. Training Building
14. Vehicle Trap
15. Water Tower

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 293 -

18,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 618DOCPB35
431,950 gsf / CAMIS ID 618DOC4440
10,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 618DOC9202
81,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 618DOCPB02
95,825 gsf / CAMIS ID 618DOCPB14
18,844 gsf / CAMIS ID 618DOC0070
1,800 gsf / CAMIS ID 618DOCPB33
625 gsf / CAMIS ID 618DOCPB15
3,024 gsf / CAMIS ID 618DOC0090
15,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 618DOC3337
1,500 gsf / CAMIS ID 618DOC0100
70 gsf / CAMIS ID 618DOCPB29
--

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Cedar Junction
Description:
 MCI Cedar Junction, formerly known as MCI Walpole, was built in 1955 on a 35 acre site as the maximum security facility for the Commonwealth. The
facility was designed with a central circulation spine with functions off it in a classic “telephone pole” scheme. This creates significant issues with
inmate movement and circulation. It is staff intensive and inefficient.
 The facility has recently been “re-missioned” as the DOC intake/orientation facility.
 The facility is in over-all good condition and is well maintained
 The Administration Building is located outside the security wall. It contains the central control, visitor reception, lobby, and administrative offices. It is a
two level CMU and steel structure with a cement stucco exterior finish which needs repair. The basement houses the Intake /Transfer/Release area.
The operational flow in this area is not optimal. The location and configuration of the spaces make it difficult to provide observation and security.
 Food Service is provided in a large central kitchen and dining area.
 The Industries Building is located within the secure perimeter and is in good condition. It houses industry and warehouse functions but has significant
space available for a new use. It is a steel frame building.
 In 1992, the DOC Department Disciplinary Unit was added to the facility by enclosing an area adjacent to the perimeter security wall with an extension.
It is a three story concrete and steel structure in very good condition.
 The medical/mental health area has inadequate space, is crowded and poorly organized.
 The stair access to the basement library is narrow, isolated and has blind spots.
 MCI Cedar Junction is part of a four facility complex located in Walpole and Norfolk. They share a common issue of a restricted water supply which
limits inmate population at the facilities. DOC has plans to eliminate this issue by connecting to a municipal water supply when funding is available.
Major Issues:
 There are operational and efficiency issues inherent in the design of the facility.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 None

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 294 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Cedar Junction
CAMIS Requested Projects:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
PRI
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5

TYPE
Security
Security
Security
Security
Clean State
Clean State
DPH Required
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

PROJECT
10 Block New Cell Front
DDU Exercise Yard Renovations
10 Block Exercise Yard Renovations
DDU Door Control Wiring Replacement
PCB Switch Gear Replacement
Clean and Paint Elevated Water Tanks
Housing Unit Shower Renovation
Sallyport Entry Floor Repair
Replace Electrical Feeders and switches
Repair Various Roofs
Sewer Line repairs
Water main shut-off and hydrant repairs
Smoke Evacuation fans in block 7 & 8
Replace "Hot-Wire"
Handball court construction
Auditorium ceiling replacement
Power Plant Roof Replacement
Perimeter Storm Drain Manhole
Tower Window Replacement (Minimum End)
Search Light Install
Window/Skylight Replacement
Foundry Building Roof Replacement
Garage Roof Replacement
Training Building Roof Replacement

FACILITY
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction/Norfolk
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction - DDU
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction
Cedar Junction

N0

COMMENTS

J000109479
J000111139
J000109481
J000109483
J000109588

3 Tanks

J000109485
J000109486
J000109487

Some repairs underw ay

J000109488

Main Inst. , Outer Bldgs. , East Wing

J000110799

10 Block and Orientation

J000110800

DDU and 9 Block

J000110803

Includes new controls

J000109489
J000110797

Recreation yard

J000110798

Auditorium

J000105617

Not included in $8.1 request.

J000109586
J000109491

Perimeter Tow ers

J000109492
J000109585

Some done under Chp. 25A

J000105614

Not included in $8.1 request.

J000105615

Not included in $8.1 request.

J000105616

Not included in $8.1 request.

COST
(in years)
$1,250,000
2
$850,000
2
$1,250,000
1.5
$250,000
4
$1,200,000
2
$2,500,000
2
$200,000
1.5
$45,000
1
$4,000,000
4
$8,173,000
4
$50,000
3
$45,000
3
$20,000
1
$1,400,000
3
$75,000
4
$125,000
4
$304,000
1
$25,000
1
$1,575,000
2
$65,000
1
$8,500,000
3
$376,880
1
$60,480
1
$30,000
1

$32,369,360

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 295 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Cedar Junction
Housing Capacity:
MCI CEDAR JUNCTION - SOUTH WALPOLE
(Custody Level: Maximum/Medium)
(Date Built: 1955)

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SF

MAX No. of INMATES

45
72
45
45
44
44
45
45
72
45
72
118
44
18

45
72
45
45
44
44
45
45
72
45
72
59
44
18

3
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
3
6
11
3
4

45
72
45
45
44
44
45
45
72
45
72
59
44
18

24
48
24
24
24
24
24
24
48
24
48
88
24
32

2,403
1,080
NA
2,403
2,403
2,403
2,403
2,403
1,080
2,403
855
2,205
2,403
511

68
31
NA
68
68
68
68
68
31
68
24
63
68
14

(126)
(17)
(90)

80

695

1

126
17
90

126

126

25

126

200

5,050

928

144

F

24
31
24
24
24
24
24
24
31
24
24
63
24
14

(126)
(17)
(90)

COMMENTS

Segregation Unit

IMPROVEMENTS
Add: 3 Showers **
Add: 3 Showers **
Add: 3 Showers **
Add: 3 Showers **
Add: 3 Showers **
Add: 3 Showers **
Add: 3 Showers **
Add: 3 Showers **

Add: 3 Showers **
Department Discipinary Unit (not
in count) Includes 4 Mental Health
Cells
Temp. housing (not in count)
Temp. housing (not in count)

379

- 296 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

676

633

45
31
45
45
44
44
45
45
31
45
24
63
44
14

----

565

** = or Shower Controls
(MC) = Modular/Concrete Building
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

TOILETS

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

SHOWERS

45
72
45
45
44
44
45
45
72
45
72
59
44
18

(35SF per Inmate)

SINKS

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

59
63
59
59
59
59
59
59
63
59
63
71
59
66.5

(1:8 Inmates)

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

45
72
45
45
44
44
45
45
72
45
72
59
44
18

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

INMATES PER ROOM

E

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

GENERAL POPULATION

D

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

x
x

(ACA Standard)

C

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

Cell
Cell
Cell

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

DDU Housing Unit
Support Beds
Support Beds

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Bristol 1 (Block 1)
Bristol 2 (A1)
Orientation 1
Plymouth 1 (Block 2)
Plymouth 2 (Block 3)
Plymouth 3 (Block 4)
Plymouth 4 (Block 5)
Suffolk 1 (Block 6)
Suffolk 2 (A2)
Essex 1 (Block 7)
Essex 2 (A3)
Modular (MC)
8 Block
9 Block

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

(1:6 Inmates)

MEN

MCI Concord
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

965 Elm Street
Concord, MA 01742
1893
Medium
518,202 gsf

Buildings
1. Bldg. A Admin/Lobby
2. Bldg. C Housing
3. Bldg. B Admin/Visiting
4. Kitchen/Dining
5. Bldg. E Housing
6. Chapel
7. Bldg. J Programs/Housing
8. Bldg. L Intake/Housing/Laundry
9. Bldg. H Gym/School
10. Bldg. F Maintenance Shops
11. Modular Housing
12. Vehicle Trap
13. Grounds Storage
14. Warehouse
15. Power Plant
16. Electrical/Emerg.
17. Waste Water Treat. Plant
18. Autoshop
19. Abandoned
20. Overflow (Admin)

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 297 -

33,500 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOC0010
23,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOC0966
20,748 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOC0650
14,900 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOC0964
34,640 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOC0963
6,400 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOC0061
49,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOC9503
40,800 gsf / CAMISID 430DOC0610
64,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOC0121
28,600 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOC0974
16,600 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOCPB03
380 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOCPB08
-28,600 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOC0974
7,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOC0717
2,400 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOCPB04
-6,500 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOC0780
4,700 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOC0642
28,960 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOC0962

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Concord
Description:
 The 528 acre site has 15 buildings in a campus-style layout.
 The facility was constructed in 1878 as a new penitentiary, was as a reformatory for men under age 30 for some time, and was finally designated as a
medium security facility in 1955 when it was renamed MCI Concord. From the mid-1970‟s until recently, it has served as DOC‟s Intake and
Classification Center.
 A number of buildings were constructed in the 1950‟s and 1960‟s. They are in good to fair condition and include Buildings A, C, E, D, H, and L.
 Recent expansion includes Building J housing and electrical generator building in the early 1990‟s, the chapel and modular units in the mid-1990‟s, and
Building L dormitory and Building C SMU renovations in 2005.
 The waste water treatment plant was expanded in the 1990‟s. It is shared with the Northeastern Correctional Center.
 The central power plant outside the secure perimeter received a low pressure steam renovation in 2004.
 The facility was recently re-missioned back to a medium security facility and may require renovations to provide for additional program space.
 The former Training / Transport Building (south of the secure perimeter) is structurally marginally and has been vacant for several years.
Major Issues:
 Overcrowded visitation center, often results in turning visitors away.
 Storage and non-traditional areas have been converted to temporary dorm-style housing. (Temporary non-traditional housing was not included in
housing capacity calculations.)
 Security systems vary in age and are not integrated.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Detox Unit
 Modular Replacement

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 298 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Concord
CAMIS Requested Projects: (Continued on next page)
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
PRI
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

TYPE
Security
Security
Security
Expansion
Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
DPH Required
DPH Required
DPH Required
DPH Required
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

PROJECT
Security Improvements
Replace Spotlights in Towers
Replace Tower Window & Exterior Siding
Replace Modular Building
Grease Trap Installation
Improve Drainage In-Service Yard
Upgrade Lift Station Pump/Float, Cons. Sm. Storage Bld
Replace Vents for Kitchen & Dish room in D-Building
Repair or Replace Chair Lift
Replace HV Ductwork E-Building
HV Control in A,B,C,E Buildings
Ventilation at H-Building, E-Showers and D-Kitchen
Muffin monster sewer grinder @ E-bldg.
Replace Sewer Line in E-Building
Upgrade Sections of Sewer Lines
Repave and Add Drainage at Main Walk
Install Gas detector in Modular Unit
Perimeter Wall Lights
Fire Alarm/Sprinkler system Upgrades
ADA Access repairs
Repair Roof at Auto Shop
Replace Spring Beds with Pan Beds
B-building Gate Upgrades
Plumbing Renovations E-bldg.
J-bldg. Elevator repairs
J-bldg. HSU gate repairs and L vehicle gates
Hot water heater and mixing valve repairs
D-bldg. Food Service Director's office
Replace windows C & E
Condensate tank replacement, D.I,and L bldg.
Re-Design Of J - Control
New Fire Alarm @ Overflow Building
Expand Commonwealth Avenue Parking
Paving Road to WWTP
Replace Showers in E-Building
Replace Flooring in E-Building
Repair Steam Line
Fire Alarm Transmitters
B#1 Ad/Operation/Visiting Roof Replacement
J Building Phase II Roof Replacement

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FACILITY
Concord
MCI-Concord
MCI-Concord
MCI-Concord
MCI-Concord
MCI-Concord
MCI-Concord WPCF
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
MCI-Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
DRM Concord/Victim Svcs
Concord
Concord

- 299 -

N0
J000109292

COMMENTS
A,B, D,E,H,I,J, and Tow er;

J000109295
J000109296
J000109566
J000109291

Working to do D-building in-house

J000109290
J000109571
J000109298
J000109299
J000109300
J000109301
J000109302
J000109304
J000109305
J000109306
J000109303

Betw een Gym and J-Building.

J000109307

In progress.

J000109308

Some repairs in-house.

J000109309
J000109310
J000109311
J000109312
J000109313
J000109314
J000109315
J000109317
J000109318

J-bldg.

J000109319
J000109320
J000109321
J000109322
J000109323
J000109324
J000109325
J000109326
J000109327
J000109328
J000109329
J000105608
J000105607

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

COST
(in years)
$3,500,000
4
$65,000
1
$225,000
1.5
$5,500,000
4
$450,000
2
$50,000
1
$10,000
1
$65,000
1
$60,000
1
$1,000,000
2
$750,000
2
$675,000
2
$70,000
1
$1,500,000
2
$650,000
2
$85,000
1
$45,000
1
$225,000
2
$525,000
2
$175,000
1.5
$195,000
1
$425,000
1
$200,000
1.5
$500,000
2
$125,000
1.5
$135,000
1
$50,000
1
$65,000
1
$2,500,000
2
$50,000
1
$200,000
2
$120,000
1
$125,000
1
$75,000
1
$125,000
1
$140,000
1
$200,000
1
$65,000
1
$414,960
2
$980,000
1.5

MCI Concord
CAMIS Requested Projects: (Continued)
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
PRI
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

TYPE
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

PROJECT
E-Building Housing Unit Roof Replacement
J Building Housing Unit #10 Roof Replacement
Modular Unit #2 Roof Replacement
New Drainage System Outside D-Building
Replace Gym Floor - Upper Level
Repair Damaged Screen/J-Building
Upgrade HV in Store House
A Building Admin Roof Replacement
K Building Chapel Roof Replacement
H Building Gym Roof Replacement
I Building Industrial Roof Replacement
L Building Housing Unit Roof Replacement
Renovate Training Building
Main Parking Lot Repave
Install Fiber Optic Lines to Towers
Power Supply Bldg. 6 Roof Replacement
Training Building Roof Replacement and Renovation
Garage/Auto Body #24 Roof Replacement
Overflow Building Roof Replacement
D Building Kitchen & Dining Roof Replacement
C Building Special Housing Roof Replacement
F Building Warehouse Roof Replacement

FACILITY
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord

N0

COMMENTS

J000105610
J000105611
J000105612
J000109285
J000109286

From Inmate Benefit Funds.

J000109287
J000109288
J000105679
J000105602
J000105603
J000105604
J000109280
J000109277

Stress Unit

J000109278

Portion done under P97-2, DC1

J000109279
J000105605
J000105606

Done in-house

J000109281
J000105609
J000109282
J000109283
J000109284

COST
(in years)
$692,800
2
$1,555,000
2
$332,000
1
$80,000
1
$150,000
1
$20,000
1
$75,000
1
$75,000
1
$140,000
1
$1,280,000
2
$744,000
1.5
$816,000
1.5
$50,000
1
$125,000
1
$100,000
1
$144,000
1
$0
1
$195,000
1
$130,320
1
$298,000
1.5
$466,000
1.5
$572,000
1

$30,075,080

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 300 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Concord
Housing Capacity:
MCI CONCORD - CONCORD
(Custody Level: Medium)
(Date Built: 1893)

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

60
90
90
60
90
90
(38)
84
84

72
72
72
72
72
72
2940
3990
3650

2
2
2
2
2
2
38
66
61

30
45
45
30
45
45
2
1
1

60
90
90
60
90
90
76
66
61

8
4
4

48
30
30

64
32
32

1,336

38

38

38

588

17

17

17

212

20

212

160

4,092

117

117

117

13

8

12

64

0

0

--

30
45
45
30
45
45
2
13
13

6
8
8
6
8
8
0
10
10

30
45
45
30
45
45
2
10
10

48
64
64
48
64
64
30
78
78

831
1,319
1,319
831
1,319
1,319
0
2,310
2,135

24
38
38
24
38
38
0
67
61

24
38
38
24
38
38
-66
61
--

242
372
242
372

1368

4
6
4
6

5
5
5
5

20
30
20
30

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS

Over Flow Housing - Converted
shower room to dorm space, 26
to 35 beds (not in count)

Segregation Unit

614

24
38
38
24
38
38

Over flow housing
66
61
Over flow housing above laundry
(Unit Offline)

--

8

8

48

1,925

55

48

48

8

8

8

48

1,925

55

48

48

595

595

(MW) = Modular/Wood Building
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

- 301 -

1303

0

8

584

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

MAX No. of INMATES

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

DAYROOM SF

48
30
30

(36)
30
40
30
40

F

MAX No. of INMATES

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

E

TOILETS

48
30
30
52
54
52
54

(1:8 Inmates)

48
30
30
52
54
52
54

D

SHOWERS

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

(1:6 Inmates)

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

61
61
61
60
60
60
60

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

GENERAL POPULATION

(ACA Standard)

C

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

x
x
x

INMATES PER ROOM

x
x
x
x
x
x
x

96
30
30
104
108
104
108
--

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

x

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

J Bldg - J-1
J Bldg - J-2
J Bldg - J-3
J Bldg - J-4
J Bldg - J-5
J Bldg - J-6
J Bldg - J-7 (Dorm)
L Bldg (Dorm) - L-1
L Bldg (Dorm) - L-2
L Bldg (Dorm) - L-3
L Bldg (Dorm) - L-4
M Bldg - Modular A (MW)
M Bldg - Modular A (MW)
M Bldg - Modular B (MW)
M Bldg - Modular B (MW)

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
C Bldg - New Line
C Bldg - SMU North
C Bldg - SMU South
E Bldg - East Up
E Bldg - East Dn
E Bldg - West Up
E Bldg - West Dn
H Bldg (Gym) - H-1

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

(35SF per Inmate)

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

SINKS

MEN

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 302 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Framingham
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

90 Loring Road
Framingham, MA 01704
1877
Awaiting Trial, Medium & Maximum
355,861 gsf

Buildings
1. Betty Cole Smith
2. Health Services/Barton
3. Housing
3A Laurel
3B Algon
3C Town Line
3D Pioneer
4. Modular Unit
5. Brewster Bldg.
6. Old Administration
7. Garage/Carpenter Shop
8. Power Plant
9. Tool Crib
10. Vehicle Trap
11. Mechanical Garage
12. State House
13. Kennel

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 303 -

55,695 gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOC9101
37,250gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOCPB06
8,500 gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOC0280
8,500 gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOC0290
8,500 gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOC0310
8,500 gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOC0300
10,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOC0301
16,560 gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOC9102
118,000gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOC0010
12,400 gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOC0170
5,900 gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOC0100
2,900 gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOC0190
288 gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOCPB15
6,800 gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOC0080
---

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Framingham
Description:
 MCI Framingham was originally constructed as a reformatory in 1877. It is the DOC‟s only committing institution for female offenders. It is the oldest
female correctional institution in operation in the United States. The facility houses women at various security levels, including DOC sentenced and
sheriff department offenders, and awaiting trial inmates. This mix of population creates numerous issues especially for an agency geared towards
longer term incarceration and rehabilitation.
 The original 1877 Administration Building is a large three story brick masonry and heavy timber structure. The building is used for inmate programs
while the West Wing is currently vacant due to security issues.
 The facility consists of six housing units and two modular buildings containing dorm housing units. Modular Unit #15 is one story built in 1981 and
Brewster is two stories built in 1989. Both are presently in fair to good condition but are not long term structures.
 Food services are provided from three separate areas. The central kitchen is located in the basement of the old Administration Building. The main
serving area is located on the second floor with food transported via elevator. Food is transported outdoors by cart to the Smith Building.
 The Health Services/Barton Building is dated in design for its current use. With 70% of the inmates reported as open mental health cases and 50% on
psychotropic medications, it is a critical facility. Its metal frame non-insulated windows require replacement.
 The site appears to have capacity for expansion.
Major Issues:
 The facility needs improvements to the perimeter security including revisions & additions to the fence and security system.
 Accessibility and Hayes Report improvements are required.
 Equipment in the medical and kitchen areas require upgrades.
 Health services unit is inadequate for number of detainees requiring detox and inmates requiring mental health services.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Modular Replacements
 Housing Expansion

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 304 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Framingham
CAMIS Requested Projects:
FY 08 -- FY11 Deferred Maintenance Requests for Correction and Sherriffs Facilities
Site

Site Name

DOC05 MCI - FRAMINGHAM

Building Name
BETTY COLE SMITH
BUILDING/#1

Project Number
J000105379

Project Description

PhaseDescription

SECURITY UP GRADES SMITH BUILDING

SMITH BUILDING SECURITY UP GRADES
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS

Est Cost

Status

750,000 Requested
$750,000

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
TYPE
Security
Security
Security
Clean State
DPH Required
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

PROJECT
Smith Building Security System Upgrade
Perimeter Fence Upgrades
Increase CCTV Data Storage
Chapter 25A Project (Energy Savings)
Cottage Renovations
Power Plant/Warehouse/Maintenance Building
Replace DA Tank @ Power Plant
Betty Cole Smith Roof Replacement
Upgrade Fire Alarm
Brewster Heating Units
Cottage condensate return replacement
Insulate Cottages, HSU Piping
Laurel Cottage Roof Replacement
Algon Cottage Roof Replacement
Town Line Cottage Roof Replacement
Pioneer Cottage Roof Replacement
Modular Unit Roof Replacement
Brewster Building Roof Replacement
Steamline Repairs
Vehicle gate repairs
Paving and Fire access road
Cottage window replacement
Outside Warehouse
Old Main Hot Water Distribution system
Old Ad Building Roof Replacement
Old Superintendent Building Roof Replacement
Secure West Wing Interior
Vehicle Maintenance Garage
Repave Perimeter Road
Tool Crib Roof Replacement
Vehicle Trap Roof Replacement
Install Platform

FACILITY
MCI-Framingham
MCI-Framingham
MCI-Framingham
MCI-Framingham
MCI-Framingham
MCI-Framingham
MCI-Framingham
Framingham
MCI-Framingham
MCI-Framingham
MCI-Framingham
MCI-Framingham
Framingham
Framingham
Framingham
Framingham
Framingham
Framingham
Framingham
Framingham
Framingham
Framingham
Framingham
Framingham
Framingham
Framingham
Framingham
Framingham
Framingham
Framingham
Framingham
Framingham

N0

COMMENTS

J000109351
J000109330

Small percentage being done.

J000109352

Work being done this fiscal year 2010

J000109332
J000109333

Some w ork being done

J000109334

If expansion does not move forw ard.

J000111141
J000106520
J000109336
J000109337
J000111142
J000109338
J000105470
J000105479
J000105480
J000105481
J000105482
J000105483
J000109350

HSU

J000109339
J000109340
J000109341
J000109342

Includes New Pow er Plant (space for)

J000109343
J000105477
J000105478
J000109353
J000109344

Part of outside w arehouse

J000109345
J000109347
J000106521
J000109349

COST
(in years)
$850,000
2
$2,500,000
4
$25,000
1
$16,000,000
4
$3,500,000
4
$18,000,000
4
$100,000
$1,782,295
2
$1,575,000
2
$50,000
1
$750,000
$45,000
1
$170,000
1
$170,000
1
$170,000
1
$170,000
1
$200,000
1
$350,000
1
$65,000
1
$25,000
1
$75,000
1
$1,200,000
2
$5,500,000
4
$75,000
1
$534,996
2
$29,160
1
$50,000
1
$105,000
4
$180,000
1
$58,000
1
$7,840
1
$225,000
1

$52,117,291

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 305 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Framingham
Housing Capacity:
MCI FRAMINGHAM - FRAMINGHAM
(Custody Level: Medium)
(Date Built: 1877)

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

6
6
6
6
6
6

32
32
34
34
34
34

48
48
48
48
48
48

1,013
1,013
1,008
1,008
1,008
1,008

29
29
29
29
29
29

29
29
29
29
29
29

9

9

9

54

2,480

71

54

9

9

9

54

2,480

71

54

7
32
32

7
6
6

9
32
32

42
48
48

756
4,062
4,062

22
116
116

22
48
48
-----

285

COMMENTS

Currently 7 beds/dorm
Currently 6 beds/dorm
Currently 7 beds/dorm
Currently 6 beds/dorm

IMPROVEMENTS

Add: 3 Showers **
Add: 3 Showers **
Add: 3 Showers **
Add: 3 Showers **

29
29
29
29
29
29

Add: 1 Sink, 1 Shower **, 1 Toilet

54

Add: 1 Sink, 1 Shower **, 1 Toilet

54

Add: 2 Showers **
Add: 2 Showers **
64 Beds (not in count)
4 Holding cells (not in count)
42 Beds (not in count)
32 beds (not in count)

400

(HSU) = Health Services Unit
** = or Shower Controls
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 306 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

613

452

22
64
64
----432

(MW) = Modular/Wood Building

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

MAX No. of INMATES

32
32
34
34
34
34

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

DAYROOM SF

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

MAX No. of INMATES

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

F

TOILETS

(1:8 Inmates)

64
64
68
68
68
68
30
25
30
25
71
64
64

E

SHOWERS

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

32
32
34
34
34
34
5
5
5
5
1
32
32

(1:6 Inmates)

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

2
2
2
2
2
2
6
5
6
5
71
2
2

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

75
75
85
85
85
85
368
305
368
305
4258
75
75

D

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

(ACA Standard)

C

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

696

INMATES PER ROOM

x
x
x
x

63
63
68
68
68
68
35
30
35
30
42
63
63
-----

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B
SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

(Temp. Housing)

GENERAL POPULATION

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

Modular (MW)
ATU - East
ATU - West
Segregation
Intake
Barton (HSU)
Health Services Unit

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

Brewster 2 (MW)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

Brewster 1 (MW)

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
CCU
Newline
Pioneer
Laurel
Algon
Townline

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

(35SF per Inmate)

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

SINKS

MEN

MCI Norfolk
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

2 Clarks Street
Norfolk, MA 02056
1931
Medium
678,317 gsf

Buildings
1. Gate House/Yard Tower
2. Administration
3. HSU/Intake
4. SMU
5. Visiting
6. Modular Housing

1,760 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOC0676
17,595 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOC0697
26,775 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOC0673
18,360 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB68
5,780 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOC0696
4,920 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB61 (Unit
P-1)
4,920 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB62 (Unit
P-2)

7. Housing

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 307 -

10,624 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB35 (Unit
1-1)
10,624 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB36 (Unit
1-2)
10,624 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB37 (Unit
1-3)
10,624 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB38 (Unit
2-1)
10,624 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB39 (Unit
2-2)
10,624 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB40 (Unit
2-3)
10,624 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB41 (Unit
3-1)
CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Norfolk

8. Programs
9. Canteen
10. Classroom/Library
11. Kitchen/Housing
12. Industries
13. Laundry/Voc. Ed.
14. Maintenance
15. Old Power Plant
(Condemned)
16. Warehouse
17. Recreation
18. Housing

10,624 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB42 (Unit
3-2)
10,624 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB43 (Unit
3-3)
10,624 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB44 (Unit
4-1)
10,624 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB45 (Unit
4-2-)
10,624 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB46 (Unit
4-3)
10,624 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOC0656 (Unit
6-1)
10,624 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB47 (Unit
6-2)
10,624 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB48 (Unit
6-3)
10,624 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOC0655 (Unit
7-1)
10,624 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB49 (Unit
7-2)
10,624 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB50 (Unit
7-3)
18,900 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOC0653
3,034 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOC0661
21,080 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB59
15,240 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOC0662
111,218 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOC0659
17,470 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB81
17,304 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB58
7,847 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB60
20,640 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOC0689
33,124 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOC0672
15,250 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB51 (Unit
8-1)
15,250 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB52 (Unit
8-2)

19. Sallyport
20. Power Plant
21. Yard Tower
22. Grounds Storage
23. Property Storage

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 308 -

-8,500 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOC0676
----

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Norfolk
Description:
 MCI Norfolk was opened in 1931 as the first “community-based” prison in the United States. A major portion of the present institution, including the
prison wall, was constructed by inmates. MCI Norfolk has the largest inmate population for any single DOC facility.
 The initial housing was similar to college dorms of the period in design and the campus style community atmosphere. The institution offers the widest
range of inmate housing within any individual DOC facility. The most recent housing units, 8-1 & 8-2 were constructed in 1997 and contain 96 precast
concrete cells.
 The facility‟s campus has an interconnecting tunnel system to all the original buildings for utilities, transporting prepared food/supplies, and staff
movement. Each housing unit has a warming kitchen and a dining area. Food is prepared in the central kitchen and delivered via the tunnels and
dumbwaiters to the housing units. The dumbwaiters require repairs and the food services equipment requires upgrades.
 There is a central power plant outside the secure perimeter that provides steam for the facility.
 The facility has extensive vocational and industries programs. The industries programs of MASSCOR include metals, mattress shop, paint shop,
clothing, silk screening, upholstery, and furniture shops.
 As with the other DOC institutions in the Norfolk/Walpole area, MCI Norfolk is subject to water limitation issues. See MCI Cedar Junction.
Major Issues:
 The 1930‟s housing has exterior envelope issues with roofs and masonry re-pointing & repairs.
 Housing units Probation 1 & 2 are located in a Type II modular wood building. The building was erected in 1980 as temporary housing and is in poor
condition.
 The old power plant building within the secure perimeter has been vacant for years. It contains hazardous materials and is a security issue.
 The security camera system is limited to 25 cameras and needs to be significantly expanded.
 There are significant accessibility upgrades and Hayes Report improvements required.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Modular Replacement
 HRD /Industries Expansion
 Transportation Garage
CAMIS Requested Projects: (continued on next page)
FY 08 -- FY11 Deferred Maintenance Requests for Correction and Sherriffs Facilities
Site

Site Name

Building Name

Project Number

Project Description

Dec-10
PhaseDescription

Est Cost

Status

DOC08 MCI - NORFOLK

SPECIAL OPS BUILDING

J000107507

MCI NORFOLK RAO'S

MCI NORFOLK RAO'S

DOC08 MCI - NORFOLK

SPECIAL OPS BUILDING

J000107508

STORM WATER - PHASE 2

STORM WATER - PHASE 2

100,000 Requested

Total Requested:

130,000

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 309 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

30,000 Requested

MCI Norfolk
CAMIS Requested Projects: (continued)
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
PRI

TYPE

1
1
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
DPH Required
DPH Required
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

PROJECT
Clean and Paint Elevated Water Tanks
Water System Upgrades
Water System Automation
Headwork heating and ventilation system upgrade
Alum Delivery System Replacement
Sampling Station Upgrade at Final Effluent
Ultraviolet Disinfection
Upgrade Hot Water
Housing Unit Shower Renovation
Replace gate House Lobby Door
Replace all unit dishwashers
Repair Fire Detection System/Master Plan
Demolish Old Power Plant
Telecommunication cabling upgrades
CTU Garage Renovation
Gate House chair lift
Transportation Garage
Roof - Still areas remaining
Repointing of Housing Units
Probation Unit P-1 Roof Replacement
Probation P-2 Roof Replacement
OIC School Bldg. Roof Replacement
New doors and windows at housing
Electrical distribution upgrades
Repaint Exterior Egress Stairs
Repair Roadway to Water Well Field
Dumbwaiters - Repair
Transportation Garage Roof Replacement
Auditorium Building Roof Replacement
Dorm 1-1 Roof Replacement
Dorm 1-1Roof Replacement
Dorm 1-3 Roof Replacement
Dorm 2-1 Roof Replacement
Dorm 2-2 Roof Replacement
Dorm 2-3 Roof Replacement
Dorm 3-1 Roof Replacement
Dorm 3-2 Roof Replacement
Dorm 3-3 Roof Replacement
Dorm 4-1 Roof Replacement
Dorm 4-2 Roof Replacement
Dorm 4-3 Roof Replacement
Dorm 6-1 Roof Replacement

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FACILITY

N0

Cedar Junction/Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk WPCF
Norfolk WPCF
Norfolk WPCF
Norfolk WPCF
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
MCI-Norfolk
MCI-Norfolk
MCI-Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk

J000109588

- 310 -

COMMENTS
3 Tanks

J000111151
J000109413
J000109414
J000109415
J000109416
J000109419
J000111152

Currently under study

J000111153
J000109580
J000111154
J000109582

Phase II - Admin. Bldg. Done FY06

J000109583

Design complete.

J000111154
J000109584

Some w ork has been done.

J000111156
J000109602

State Transportation

J000109612
J000109407
J000105649
J000105650
J000105652

structural issues

J000111143
J000111144
J000109611
J000111157
J000109406
J000105675
J000105626
J000105628
J000105627
J000105630
J000105631
J000105632
J000105633
J000105634
J000105636
J000105637
J000105638
J000105639
J000105640
J000105641

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

COST
$2,500,000
$5,000,000
$500,000
$25,000
$10,000
$10,000
$150,000
$500,000
$500,000
$9,500
$150,000
$3,000,000
$500,000
$450,000
$150,000
$45,000
$2,000,000
$4,740,326
$3,500,000
$157,444
$157,444
$674,581
$2,500,000
$7,000,000
$320,000
$50,000
$150,000
$474,254
$113,900
$65,000
$65,000
$65,000
$65,000
$65,000
$65,000
$65,000
$65,000
$65,000
$65,000
$65,000
$65,000
$65,000

(in years)
2
4
2
1
1
1
1

1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1.5

1
1
2
1.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

MCI Norfolk
CAMIS Requested Projects: (continued)
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
PRI
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5

TYPE
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

PROJECT
Dorm 6-2 Roof Replacement
Dorm 6-3 Roof Replacement
Dorm 7-1 Roof Replacement
Dorm 7-2 Roof Replacement
Dorm 7-3 Roof Replacement
Housing HVAC Upgrades
Tunnel / Structural Improvement
Repair Sewerline by Visit
Repair/Replace Surface Drain and Line
SYHY/MLK Building Roof Replacement
Hospital Building Roof Replacement
Ad. Building Roof Replacement
Gate House Roof Replacement
Industries Roof Replacement
Replace heating system in towers
CMU Sewer Shed Roof Replacement
SMU Segregation Roof Replacement
DRM Central Office Roof Replacement
Small Garage/Building Roof Repair

FACILITY
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
MCI-Norfolk
MCI-Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk

N0

COMMENTS

J000105642
J000105643
J000105647
J000105644
J000105645
J000111145
J000111146
J000109404
J000109405

Facility Entrance

J000105671
J000105672
J000105673
J000105676
J000105677
J000111158
J000105665
J000105666
J000105667
J000105674

COST
(in years)
$65,000
1
$65,000
1
$65,000
1
$65,000
1
$65,000
1
$500,000
$500,000
$50,000
1
$85,000
1
$487,695
1.5
$856,826
1.5
$184,965
1
$64,125
1
$2,224,360
2
$25,000
$1,500
1
$587,538
2
$4,500
1
$3,500
1

$42,082,458

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 311 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Norfolk
Housing Capacity:
MCI NORFOLK - NORFOLK
(Custody Level: Medium)
(Date Built: 1931)

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SF

MAX No. of INMATES

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

F

TOILETS

(1:8 Inmates)

E

33
30
33
45
48
46
49
46
49
39
28
30
46
47
8
27
26
40
48
48
18

6
4
6
5
7
6
8
6
8
8
5
7
6
5
5
8
6
9
3
3
14

33
30
33
5
47
45
48
45
48
40
31
35
45
47
11
26
27
43
48
48
14

48
32
48
40
56
48
64
48
64
64
40
56
48
40
40
64
48
72
24
24
108

1,441
1,434
1,417
1,441
1,434
1,417
1,441
1,434
1,417
1,441
1,434
1,417
1,441
1,434
1,417
1,441
1,434
1,417
3,704
3,704
4,222

41
41
40
41
41
40
41
41
40
41
41
40
41
41
40
41
41
40
106
106
120

41
32
40
40
41
40
41
41
40
41
40
40
41
40
40
41
41
40
24
24
108

3

3

5

18

2,020

57

18

-----1472

D

SHOWERS

62
62
62
64
64
64
68
68
68
68
68
61
58
58
59
60
60
60
96
96
140
50
24
8
8

(1:6 Inmates)

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

2
2
70
50
24
8
8

49
48
49
46
48
49
51
46
51
49
48
48
43
44
31
52
52
49
48
48
2
1
1
1
1

C

-----955

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS

Add: 9 Showers **
Add: 9 Showers **

Add: 6 Sinks, 4 Showers **, 2
Toilets
(not in count)
(not in count)
31 beds (not in count)
29 beds - unit offline (not in count)
39 beds (not in count)

894

(MW) = Modular/Wood Building
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 312 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

1511

1084

41
32
40
40
41
40
41
41
40
41
40
40
41
40
40
41
41
40
96
96
108
54
-----1,074

** = or Shower Controls

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

x
x
x

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

55

Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
71
71
4222
3000
1450
500
500

INMATES PER ROOM

62
55
62
64
64
64
68
68
68
68
68
61
58
58
59
60
60
60
93
93
104

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

GENERAL POPULATION

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Cell
Cell
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Block 1-1
Block 1-2
Block 1-3
Block 2-1
Block 2-2
Block 2-3
Block 3-1
Block 3-2
Block 3-3
Block 4-1
Block 4-2
Block 4-3
Block 6-1
Block 6-2
Block 6-3
Block 7-1
Block 7-2
Block 7-3
Block 8-1
Block 8-2
Prob 1 & 2 (MW)
SYHU - Dorm Room #1
SYHU - Dorm Room #2
SYHU - Houseman #1
SYHU - Houseman #2
Health Services (2nd Floor)
Health Services (Basement)
SMU (1st Floor)
SMU (2nd Floor)
SMU (3rd Floor)

B

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

(ACA Standard)

A

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

SLEEPING SPACE

(35SF per Inmate)

WOMEN

SINKS

MEN

MCI Plymouth
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

Myles Standish
State Forest
Plymouth, MA
1952
Minimum
56,504 gsf

Buildings
2. Control Center/HSU
1. Security Division
3. A-Dorm Housing Units
4. B-Dorm Hosuing Units
5. Kitchen/Dining Facility
6. Superintendent‟s Office
7. C-Dorm/Class/Program Office
8. C-Dorm Housing Units
9. Maintenance
10. Worship Center
11. Pondside Meeting House
12. Generator Building
13. Fire Reservoir
14. Fire Pump House
15. Flammable/Gas Storage
(Location TBD)
16. Maintenance/Tool Storage
17. Program Center
18. Morton Building
19. Weight Room
20. Property Storage
21. Records Storage
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 313 -

320 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC0040
11,409 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC0191
8,425 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC0022
5,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC9104
14,064 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC9103
1,880 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC0021
-2,400 GSF / CAMIS ID 720DOC0161
324 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC0193
1,824 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC0171
448 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC0130
-169 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC0122
768 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC0140
1,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC9102
1,692 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC0195
768 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC0112
391 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC0181

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

22. Garage
23. Caustic/Toxic Mlts.
24. Library/Barber Shop/Toxic
Caustic Room/School
25. Bunkhouse/Program Room
26. Water Treatment Building
27. Flammable Drum Storage

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 314 -

2,474 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC0030
1,788 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC0020
1,080 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC0060
80 gsf / CAMIS ID 720DOC9508
--

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Plymouth
Description:
 MCI Plymouth was opened in 1952 on a 407 acre site within the Myles Standish State Forest. In 1984, it was converted to a minimum custody facility
for male inmates within 4 years of their earliest potential release date. Its inmate work crews provide labor for forestry services. The facility is a campus
of relatively small buildings linked by outdoor walks and has the appearance of a summer camp. Many of the smaller structures are single story with
wood frames. The two larger buildings are CMU with asphalt shingle pitched roofs.
 The housing units have a total of 153 double occupancy rooms. There are no cells at the facility which can be problematic.
 Much of the equipment in the food service and medical area is old and needs to be replaced / upgraded.
 There is a shortage of program and administrative space.
 There is no laundry facility at the site.
 There are no dayrooms for most of the housing units.
Major Issues:
 Many of the buildings require roof repair or replacement.
 There is no indoor recreation area or gymnasium which is a major issue during inclement weather.
 The campus and buildings require accessibility improvements/modifications.
 The campus needs security cameras and fire alarm upgrades.
 Hayes Report improvements are needed.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 None
CAMIS Requested Projects:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
PRI
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5

TYPE
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

PROJECT
C-Dorm Roof Replacement
Lower Campus Boilers (7)
Morton Builidng Freezer Repair
Kitchen Walk-in Cooler Floor
Program Building Roof Replacement
Records Storage Building Roof Replacement
Weight Room Roof Replacement
Water Treatment Roof Repair
Recreation Building
Tool Shed Roof Replacement

FACILITY
Plymouth
MCI-Plymouth
MCI-Plymouth
MCI-Plymouth
Plymouth
Plymouth
Plymouth
Plymouth
Plymouth
Plymouth

N0

COMMENTS

J000105629
J000109433
J000109434
J000109435
J000105655
J000105656
J000105657
J000105663
J000109430
J000105654

COST
(in years)
$120,016
1
$75,000
1
$10,000
1
$125,000
1
$6,553
1
$3,336
1
$14,438
1
$1,000
1
$1,575,000
2
$1,200
1

$1,931,543

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 315 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Plymouth
Housing Capacity:
MCI PLYMOUTH - PLYMOUTH
(Custody Level: Minimum)
(Date Bulit: 1952)

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SF

MAX No. of INMATES

1
9

64

1320/NA

38/NA

64

Cell

x

98

88

2

49

98

8

6

6

48

NA

NA

48

Cell

x

50

88

2

50

100

8

6

6

48

1113/NA

32/NA

48

Dorm B - Single B
Dorm C

250

(1:8 Inmates)

(1:6 Inmates, I-3)

151

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

TOILETS

1
7

(35SF per Inmate)

SHOWERS

0
10

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

SINKS

4
100

(1:8 Inmates, R-2)

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

2
50

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

2
2

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

100
88

GENERAL POPULATION

2
100

TYPE
Cell
Cell

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

x
x

UNIT
Dorm A - HC A
Dorm A - Single A

GENERAL POPULATION

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

F

INMATES PER ROOM

E

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

D

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS
Add: 3 Sinks, 3 Showers **, 3
Toilets
Add: 8 Sinks, 6 Showers **, 6
Toilets
Add: 8 Sinks, 6 Showers **, 6
Toilets

160

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 316 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

205

151

102
96
96

294

** = or Shower Controls
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

(ACA Standard)

C

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

(Temp. Housing)

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

MEN

MCI Shirley – Medium Security
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

P.O. Box 1218
Shirley, MA 01464
1991
Medium
303,664 gsf

Buildings
1. SMU
2. HSU, Booking
3. Housing A1 & A2
4. Housing B1 & B2
5. Housing C1 & C2
6. Housing D1 & D2
7. Housing E1 & E2
8. Housing F1 & F2
9. Gymnasium
10. VOC Education
11. Classroom/Library
12. Programs
13. Visitors/Admin Bldg
14. Food Service
15. Industries
16. Vehicle Trap
17. Admin. Bldg
18. Warehouse
STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 317 -

11,600 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB21
19,410 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB15
23,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB01
23,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB03
23,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB04
23,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB06
23,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB07
23,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB08
15,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB14
20,800 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB27
10,194 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB20
11,616 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB17
8,480 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB26
18,082 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB09
46,700 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB16
-12,894 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB02
7,770 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB29

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Shirley – Medium Security
Description:
 MCI Shirley (Medium) was completed in 1991 as a medium security facility on land adjacent to the MCI Shirley (Minimum) facility. The facility was
designed as a large open linear campus without enclosed circulation between buildings. Any inmate movement to the central dining or program
facilities is subject to weather conditions and is staff intensive due to the layout and distances. Additional security fencing has been added to subdivide
the large open central yard but this increases the difficulty of movements.
 Seven Type I buildings contain 13 housing units with a total of 780 precast concrete cells of 84 square feet per cell. A Special Needs or Assisted Daily
Living Unit with 13 beds was added in 2005 by converting the original booking area.
 The Food Service/Dining is in a Type II wood/metal modular building. The kitchen and dining area floors are in poor to failing condition.
 The Outside Administration Building, Visitor/Inside Administration Building, and the Programs Building are Type II wood/metal modular structures with
issues.
 The gymnasium is a Type III pre-engineered metal building that has major roof and side wall deficiencies.
 There is space within the secure perimeter for limited additions or expansion. There is developable area immediately adjacent to the secure perimeter.
Major Issues:
 The housing unit showers need renovations. The housing unit windows/skylights and emergency cell door releases require repairs or replacement.
The housing roof-top HV units require complete overhaul or replacement.
 Many buildings require new roofs.
 The security system requires upgrades. Expand the CCTV system. The fire alarm system needs to be replaced.
 The electrical distribution system requires upgrades.
 ADA and Hayes Report improvements are required.
 Kitchen, Laundry, and Medical equipment upgrades required.
 The marginal condition of many support buildings should be assessed prior to major renovations, replacement, or additions to any buildings or major
systems at the facility.
 SMU recreation yard upgrades are necessary.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Special Needs Unit (Geriatric)
 Health Services Unit / Booking Replacement
 Replacement of Classrooms, Library, Programs , Food Service Units

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 318 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Shirley – Medium Security
CAMIS Requested Projects: (continued next page)
FY 08 -- FY11 Deferred Maintenance Requests for Correction and Sherriffs Facilities
Site

Site Name

DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY

Building Name
FOOD SERVICES - MEDIUM
SECURITY
FOOD SERVICES - MEDIUM
SECURITY
OFFICES ADMINISTRATION
BLDG #12-MIN

DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY

GYM - MEDIUM SECURITY

J000107287

SEAL COAT GYM ROOF

SEAL COAT GYM ROOF

30,000 Requested

DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY

J000107288

SEAL COAT PROGRAMS BUILDING ROOF

SEAL COAL PROGRAMS BUILDING ROOF

30,000 Requested

DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY

PROGRAMS BUILDING
INDUSTRIES BUILDING - MED
SECURITY

J000107290

SEAL COAT MAINT./INDUSTRIES BLDG. ROOF

SEAL COAT MAINT./INDUSTRIES BLDG.

DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY

OUTSIDE GROUNDS

J000107291

UPGRADE FUEL STORAGE TANK AT WWTP

UPGRADE FUEL STORAGE AT WWTP

20,000 Requested

J000107292

REPLACE #10 COTTAGE ROOF

REPLACE ROOF #10 COTTAGE

45,000 Requested

J000107300

REPLACE STEAM PLANT ROOF

REPLACE STEAM PLANT ROOF

75,000 Requested

DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY

J000107301

HEATING SYSTEM CONTROLS FOR TRAINING ACADEMY

HEATING SYSTEM CONTROLS FOR TRANING ACADEMY

50,000 Requested

DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY

J000107308

INSTALL FOUNDATION PERIMETER DRAINS AT RIBEIRO

INSTALL FOUDATION PERIMETER DRAINS AT RIBEIRO

30,000 Requested

J000107338

SEAL COAT ROOF OF MODS BLDG.

SEAL COAT ROOF OF MODS BLDG.

30,000 Requested

J000107340

INSTALL DUCTED RETURNS FOR EIGHT ROOFTOP UNITS

INSTALL DUCTED RETURNS FOR EIGHT ROOFTOP UNITS

40,000 Requested

DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY

MODULARS BUILDING 13-MED
HEALTH SERVICES UNIT - MED
SECURITY
VISITORS/ADMINISTRATION
CENTER-MIN

J000107341

INSTALL DUCTED RETURNS ON THREE ROOFTOP UNITS

INSTALL DUCTED RETURNS ON THREE ROOFTOP UNITS

15,000 Requested

DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY

PROGRAMS BUILDING

J000107342

INSTALL DUCTED RETURNS ON FOUR ROOFTOP UNITS

INSTALL DUCTED RETURNS ON FOUR ROOFTOP UNITS

20,000 Requested

DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY

A BUILDING - MED SEC

J000107351

EXTEND FOUR HEATING UNIT DISCHARGE DUCTS

EXTEND FOUR HEATING UNIT DISCHARGE DUCTS

10,000 Requested

DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY

B BUILDING - MEDIUM SECURITY J000107352
C BUILDING - MEDIUM
SECURITY
J000107353

EXTEND FOUR HEATING UNIT DISCHARGE DUCTS

EXTEND FOUR HEATING UNIT DISCHARGE DUCTS

10,000 Requested

EXTEND FOUR HEATING UNIT DISCHARGE DUCTS

EXTEND FOUR HEATING UNIT DISCHARGE DUCTS

10,000 Requested

J000107354

EXTEND FOUR HEATING UNIT DISCHARGE DUCTS

EXTEND FOUR HEATING UNIT DISCHARGE DUCTS

J000107510

MCI SHIRLEY FUEL TANK REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT

MCI SHIRLEY FUEL TANK REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT

250,000 Requested

J000107524

MCI SHIRLEY-FIRE ALARM SYSTEM REPAIR

MCI SHIRLEY-FIRE ALARM SYSTEM REPAIR

225,000 Requested

J000107600

REPLACE GASOLINE PUMP/DISPENSER

DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY
DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY

DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY
DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY

DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY
DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY

DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY

POWER BUILDING #17-MIN

DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY
DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY
DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY
DOC24 MCI - SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY

POWER BUILDING #17-MIN
ADMINISTRATION MEDIUM
SECURITY
CAFETERIA-KITCHENWAREHOUSE-MIN

Project Number

Project Description

PhaseDescription

Est Cost

Status

J000107283

REPLACE INMATE DINING HALL FLOOR

REPLACE INMATE DINING HALL FLOOR

250,000 Requested

J000107285

REPLACE STAFF DINING HALL AND KITCHEN FLOORS

REPLACE STAFF DINING AND KITCHEN FLOORS

150,000 Requested

J000107286

REPAIR WATER DAMAGED BRICK WALL

REPAIR WATER DAMAGED BRICK WALL

30,000 Requested

- 319 -

10,000 Requested

0 Requested
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

0 Requested

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

$1,330,000

MCI Shirley – Medium Security
CAMIS Requested Projects:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
PRI
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5

TYPE
Security
Expansion
Clean State
Clean State
DPH Required
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

PROJECT
Security System Upgrade
Replacement Food Service Building
Water Tank Cleaning
New Emerency Generator Fuel Tank
Housing Unit Shower Renovation
Hot Water Metal Chimney Replacement
Additional Rec. Rooms at SMU
Replace Air Handlers, Exhaust fans & Heat exchangers
Rec. Roof Gym
Repave Roadway to Wells
Re-Roof
Re - Roof
Light Level - Dark Skies Intiative
Vehicle gate repairs
Block Release Repairs
New fuel monitoring system
Communication link repair at water plant
Replace Light Fixtures in Janitor's Closet
Steam Controls at Academy
Electrical Distribution Upgrade
Security door and window repairs
Communication/Fire alarm upgrades
Steamline Repairs

FACILITY
MCI-Shirley
MCI-Shirley
Shirley
MCI-Shirley
Shirley
Shirley
Shirley
Shirley Medium
MCI-Shirley Med
Shirley
Shirley Medium
Shirley Medium
SBCC/Shirley
Shirley
Shirley
Shirley
Shirley
Shirley
Shirley
Shirley Complex
Shirley Medium
Shirley Medium
Shirley Minimum

N0
J000109444

COMMENTS
PLC's and Perimeter.Work ongoing.

J000109446
J000109449
J000109447
J000109450

Some w ork done in-house.

J000110006
J000109451
J000109452

Replaces Siebe control item

J000109609
J00011007
J000109441

Type I

J000109442

Type II and Type III

J000109500
J000109453
J000109455
J000109456

(see Tank Replacement)

J000109457

Some w ork completed.

J000109436
J000109437
J000109438
J000109439
J000109440
J000109443

COST
$0
$12,000,000
$750,000
$750,000
$750,000
$100,500
$125,000
$1,500,000
$450,000
$75,000
$2,784,000
$2,300,000
$250,000
$25,000
$175,000
$15,000
$25,000
$25,000
$425,000
$850,000
$1,700,000
$2,500,000
$150,000

$27,724,500

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 320 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

(in years)
4
1.5
2
2
1
1
2
1.5
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1

MCI Shirley – Medium Security
Housing Capacity:
MCI SHIRLEY MEDIUM - SHIRLEY
(Custody Level: Medium)
(Date Built: 1991)

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

TOILETS

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SF

MAX No. of INMATES

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60

120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120

60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60

80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80

4,800
4,800
4,800
4,800
4,800
4,800
4,800
4,800
4,800
4,800
4,800
4,800
4,800

137
137
137
137
137
137
137
137
137
137
137
137
137

F

IMPROVEMENTS
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **
Add: 5 Showers **

1198

720

120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120

Includes cells and dorms (not in
count)

(68)

1547
** = or Shower Controls
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

COMMENTS

80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

SHOWERS

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

SINKS

84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84

(1:8 Inmates)

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

E

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

(Single - 35SF min unemcumbered

Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

(Temp. Housing)

D

INMATES PER ROOM

x

119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119
119

C

SQUARE FEET

Cells/Dorms

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

Health Services

x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

GENERAL POPULATION

Cells
Cells
Cells
Cells
Cells
Cells
Cells
Cells
Cells
Cells
Cells
Cells
Cells

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
A1
A2
B1
B2
C1
C2
D1
D2
E1
E2
F1
F2
SMU (Segregation)

B

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

(ACA Standard)

A

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

SLEEPING SPACE

(35SF per Inmate)

WOMEN

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2)

MEN

780

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

1040

- 321 -

1560

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 322 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Shirley – Minimum Security
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:

P.O. Box 1218
Shirley, MA 01464
1972
Minimum

Sq. Footage:

Buildings
1. DOC Administration Bldg
2. DOC Training Bldg
3. Cottage #10
4. Cottage #8
5. Cottage #6 (Vacant)
6. Cottage #7 (Vacant)
7. Cottage #5 (Vacant)
8. Abandoned Bldg
9. Ribeiro Center (Training)
10. Abandoned Bldg
11. Freezer Facility
12. Cottage #13 (Vacant/Modular)
13. Cottage #9
14. Cottage #11
15. State Transportation Office
16. Power Plant
17. Residence

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 323 -

38,538 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOC9201
17,720 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB40
10,620 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB42
8,818 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB46
10,620 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB41
7,637 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB45

7,716 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB37
6,216 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOC9205
11,224 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOCPB76

16,370 gsf / CAMIS ID 412DOC9206

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Shirley – Minimum Security
Description:
 MCI Shirley (Minimum) was opened in 1972 as a minimum security institution in buildings that were part of a Youth Services facility since 1908. The
site and some buildings were originally a former Shaker farming community. The minimum security inmates maintain the grounds and common
facilities in the Shirley Complex, in addition to performing community service projects. Since 2002, MCI Shirley (Minimum) is administered by MCI
Shirley (Medium).
 The housing units are located in a variety of smaller buildings with significantly different ages and condition. Some of the buildings are undergoing
renovations by DOC staff and inmates.
 The Food Service and Dining area are no longer used as all meals are delivered to the housing units after preparation at the MCI Shirley (Medium)
Kitchen.
 There is significant open land available for expansion.
Major Issues:
 Cottage #13 is a Type II modular structure built in 1987. The building originally contained program space and housing but was vacant for a number of
years. Its condition is marginal.
 Several of the Shaker buildings have significant structural issues. Some have been vacant for years. Many of these buildings are protected as historic
structures and require stabilization including window replacement and exterior wall insulation.
 ADA improvements are required.
 Most buildings require roof repairs/replacement and exterior painting.
 Security improvements include installation of a demarcation fence on the northern perimeter, window security screens and security camera upgrades.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Modular Replacement
CAMIS Requested Projects: See Shirley Medium

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 324 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

MCI Shirley – Minimum Security
Housing Capacity:
MCI SHIRLEY MINIMUM - SHIRLEY
(Custody Level: Minimum)
(Date Built: 1991)

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

TOILETS

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SF

MAX No. of INMATES

Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies

13
15
14
15
31
17
20

50
50
50
50
50
28
128

17
13
11
11
7
9
16

5
8
9
9
3
9
16

12
7
7
12
7
9
16

40
56
56
72
24
72
64

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

342
(MW) = Modular/Wood Building
* Limited by Code/See Improvements
** = or Shower Controls
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

125

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

F

40
50
50
50
24
28
64

COMMENTS

One Side Occupied

IMPROVEMENTS

Sprinkler Building

306

- 325 -

276

249

40
50
50
50
24
28
128
370

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

SHOWERS

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

SINKS

Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies

(1:8 Inmates)

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

E

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

(Single - 35SF min unemcumbered

*

D

INMATES PER ROOM

50
50
50
50
50
28
64

C

SQUARE FEET

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

GENERAL POPULATION

(Temp. Housing)

x
x
x
x
x
x
x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Room/Dorm
Dorm
Dorm
Room/Dorm
Room/Dorm
Room
Room

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Cottage 6 (U6)
Cottage 7 (U7)
Cottage 8 (U8)
Cottage 9 (U9)
Cottage 10 (U10)
Building 11 (U11)
Modular (MW)

B

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

(ACA Standard)

A

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

SLEEPING SPACE

(35SF per Inmate)

WOMEN

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2)

MEN

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 326 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

North Central Correctional Institution –
Minimum & Medium Security
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

500 Colony Road
P.O. Box 466
Gardner, MA 01440
1975
Medium & Minimum
1,163,903 gsf

Buildings
1. Laundry
4. Shop
2. Dorm
3. Domestic Bldg.
5. Dorm
6. Voc. Ed.
7. Recreation Bldg.
8. Green House
9. Dorm
10. Music
11. Bldg. B
12. Laurel Bldg.
13. Gym
14. Bldg. F
15. Bldg. A
16. Bldg. E
17. Bldg. D
18. Bldg. C
19. Thompson Hall
20. Store/Pwr House

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 327 -

11,250 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC6667
8,520 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC7774
27,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC6666
6,120 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC7772
4,800 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOCPB18
29,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC6669
1,500 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOCPB09
6,120 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC7771
1,040 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC7773
26,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC6665
9,639 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC6663
6,200 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC7775
19,260 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC1270
25,309 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC6664
19,260 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC1260
19,260 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC1280
19,260 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC1290
74,996 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC1310
25,344 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC0161
(Storehouse)
9,310 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC5559 (Power
House)

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

North Central Correctional Institution

21. Carpentry Shop
22. Ground Garage
23. Vehicle Trap
24. Generator Bldg.
25. Switch Gear Bldg.
26. Storage Shed
27. Storage Shed
28. Garage
29. Garage (Cedar)
30. Cedar House
31. Pine House
32. Catalpa House
33. Training Ctr.
34. Locust House
35. Juniper
36. Kennel

4,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC1530
2,555 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC5551
600 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC1450
360 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC8881
660 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC7776
3,600 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC1500
3,600 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC1510
4,048 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC6661
600 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC1430
5,026 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC1320
5,724 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC1340
5,026 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC1330
9,639 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC1410
7,698 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC1360
3,800 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC1350
3,250 gsf / CAMIS ID 308DOC1200

Description:
 The North Central Correctional Institution was originally a Department of Mental Health facility that opened in 1902 as the Gardner State Hospital. In
1979, the facility was transferred to DOC and underwent extensive renovations to convert it to a correctional use. The facility houses primarily medium
custody male inmates with a high percentage of sentenced sex offenders and related programs.
 There are 33 buildings on a large campus. In general, most campus buildings are in good condition.
 Most housing buildings date from the 1920‟s and 30‟s and have brick facades with pitched roofs. I Building is a Type II wood modular structure (1980)
with 104 dormitory beds. The floors and toilet/shower areas are undergoing extensive repairs and accessible ramps are being added.
 The minimum security facility is located outside of the secure perimeter and is called Locust House. It is a 2-story wood structure in fair condition and
provides housing for 30 male inmates.
 Almost all inmate housing is dry rooms or dorms. The lack of wet cells presents some security concerns.
 The medium and minimum facilities share utilities. An older central power/steam plant is located outside the secure perimeter.
 The 1300 acre site has an upper and lower campus situated on two relatively flat plateaus with hilly terrain between. Distances and grade transitions
on the campus are an operational and access issue. The campus is bordered on several sides by wetlands. There are sites available for expansion
within the secure perimeter and outside the perimeter.
 The central dining is undersized and requires 5 food service periods for the number of inmates.
 The facility perimeter has 3 manned guard towers.
 The facility has two control rooms and would like to consolidate them in a central control room by renovating the old roll call room in Building C. One of
the existing control rooms would then be renovated to provide additional medical service space.

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 328 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

North Central Correctional Institution – Minimum & Medium Security
Major Issues:
 The medical space is inadequate and undersized for the number of inmates served. Exam rooms are cramped and the mental health interview room is
located in a shower closet. The waiting area accommodates only 2 inmates.
 Interior and perimeter security systems are in need of updating. There are an inadequate number of security cameras inside the buildings. There are
no cameras in the library.
 Water, sewer, and electrical service runs under adjacent wetlands. The electrical service to the campus is undersized.
 Inmates are brought through the main entrance lobby for Intake. The facility would like to develop a separate access point for inmates.
 Needed repairs include: roof repairs, upper campus utility tunnel structural repairs/replacement, heating system/steam line repairs, elevator code
upgrades, security upgrades, plumbing upgrades, and replacement windows.
 The Type II wood modular building is reaching the end of its useful life. Several buildings outside of the perimeter are either vacated or condemned.
 Hayes Report and accessibility upgrades are needed.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Central Control Room Renovation and Medical Services Expansion
 Modular Replacement
CAMIS Requested Projects: (Continued on next page)
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
PRI

TYPE

2
2
1
1
2
2
3
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Security
Security
Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
Clean State
DPH Required
DPH Required
DPH Required
DPH Required
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

PROJECT
Senstar System Repairs/Upgrades
CCTV Upgrades
Wind Turbine
Chapter 25A Project (Energy Savings)
Water System(s) upgrades
Asbestos Abatement
Unitel Gas Service
Hot Water Storage System Domistic Bldg
Upgrade G&H Hot Water
Upgrade A&B Heating System
Upgrade Thompson Hall Heating
Fire Alarm Repairs
Switch Gear Maintenance
Steamline from Power plant to Laundry
Elevator Repairs
Power Plant Upgrade
Replace Floor in I-Building Structure
Tunnel / Structural Improvement
I-Building floor/bathroom replacement

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FACILITY

N0

NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI

J000109364

Zone 10 Repaired and head-end

J000109365

Cameras installed in BSMU, TSMU, HSU

J000109367

Contract pending aw ard

J000109371

Study phase aw aiting completion

- 329 -

COMMENTS

J000109368
J000109369

Some w ork in tunnels completed.

J000109370

Survey completed w ill be part of energy project

J000109372
J000109373
J000109374
J000109375
J000109376

Three (3) panels upgraded.

J000109377

Completed - 3 year intervals.

J000109378

Temporary repairs made.

J000109379

C-Building repaired.

J000109380

Some w ork completed. Part of Energy project

J000109381
J000109382

Tunnel Walls / Covers ; Facility

J000111148

Funds requested from DCAM

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

COST
$775,000
$225,000
$9,000,000
$15,000,000
$1,500,000
$100,000
$1,200,000
$150,000
$35,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$125,000
$100,000
$175,000
$3,750,000
$750,000
$4,250,000
$300,000

(in years)
2
1.5
4
4
4
2
4
1.5
1
1
1
1
3
1
1.5
4
2
4

North Central Correctional Institution – Minimum & Medium Security
CAMIS Requested Projects: (continued)
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
PRI

TYPE

1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

PROJECT
Laurel Bldg. 8 Roof Replacement
Replace High Voltage Lines Feeding the Institution
Replace Fuel Burners on Existing Boilers
C-Building and Vehicle Trap Structural Repairs
Security fence repairs
Security lock/Security Screens Repairs
Search Light upgrades
C-Building Electrical System Upgrade
Store House Roof Replacement
Grounds Bldg. #2 Roof Replacement
Man Lift (60 foot)
Upgrade Plumbing Fixtures
I-Building #16 Roof Replacement
Kitchen Equipment Upgrades
Hot Water Bundles
F-Building Shower Floors
Gym floor resurface
Replace Steamline Power Plant/Carp. Shop
A-Building #9 Roof Replacement
B-Building #6 Roof Replacement
Domestic #19 Roof Replacement
Laundry & Industrial Shop Roof Replacement
Industrial Bldg. #13 Roof Replacement
H-Building #2 Roof Replacement
Replace Central A/C in Thompson Hall Control Rooms
Repave Perimeter Roadways and Parking Areas
Kennel Roof Replacement
Building #3 Roof Replacement
Building #4 Roof Replacement
Building D #2 Roof Replacement
Building C #1 Roof Replacement
Thompson Building #5 Roof Replacement
Cedar House #25 Roof Replacement
Catalpa House #23 Roof Replacement
Pine House Roof Replacement
Juniper Building #20 Roof Replacement
Locus House Building #21 Roof Replacement
Power Plant Building Roof Replacement
Music Bunker #18 Roof Replacement
Storage Shed Roof Replacement
Computer Vehicle Analyzer
Storehouse Freezer Electrical
Sprinkler Pipe Repairs

FACILITY

N0

NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI
NCCI

J000105586

Structural issues

COMMENTS

J000109385

Some repairs made. Included in energy project

J000109386

Look to roll into Chp 25A project.

J000109387
J000109388
J000109390
J000109391

Will be addressed in-house.

J000109392

Assessment completed.

J000105559

Temporary repairs made.

J000105584

Structural Issues

J000109359
J000109360

F-Building completed.

J000105596
J000109394
J000109395

Some repairs made.

J000109396

In progress.

J000111149
J000109397
J000105587

Temporary repairs made.

J000105588

Temporary repairs made.

J000105590

Temporary repairs made.

J000105591
J000105592
J000105594

Asbestos shingles.

J000109354
J000109355
J000105560

Temporary repairs made.

J000105562

Temporary repairs made.

J000105563

Temporary repairs made.

J000105565

Temporary repairs made.

J000105566

Temporary repairs made.

J000105567

Temporary repairs made.

J000105568
J000105577

Building condemned.

J000105578

Building condemned.

J000105579
J000105580

Temporary repairs made.

J000106798

Temporary repairs made.

J000105595
J000105601
J000109356
J000109362
J000109363

Partial repairs made.

COST
$650,000
$3,000,000
$400,000
$25,000
$62,000
$85,000
$25,000
$200,000
$811,033
$125,000
$125,000
$60,000
$170,400
$500,000
$20,000
$15,000
$80,000
$100,000
$162,000
$166,500
$174,085
$360,000
$225,000
$40,000
$50,000
$225,000
$27,734
$125,000
$125,000
$125,000
$125,000
$479,989
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
$50,000
$186,200
$40,000
$12,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000

$53,576,941

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 330 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

(in years)
1
4
1.5
1
1
1
1
1
2
1.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.5
1.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

North Central Correctional Institution – Medium and Minimum Security
Housing Capacity:
NORTH CENTRAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - GARDNER
(Custody Level: Medium)
(Date Built: 1975)

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
--

2
1
1
5
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
20

83
85
79
85
89
98
108
110
113
115
121
124
130
133
136
159
varies
varies
varies
103
103

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
---2
2

1
2
2
6
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
27
27
27
23
23

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

-2
1
1
5
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
20
1
2
2
6
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
27
27
27
18
18

5

5

5

5
5
5
4
4

2
1
1
5
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
20
1
2
2
6
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
27
27
27
18
18

F

--

--

40

40

2,440

70

40

40
--

2,440

70
--

40
--

40

2,440

70

40

2,440

70

70

450
450

13
13

13
13

40
40
40
36
36

- 331 -

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS

Dorm configured similar to North 1

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

--

40
--

40

Dorm config sim to North 3
Dorm config sim to North 3
Dorm config sim to North 3

70
13
13

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

E

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

(35SF per Inmate)

DAYROOM SF

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

TOILETS

(1:8 Inmates)

SHOWERS

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2)

SINKS

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

INMATES PER ROOM

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

85
79
85
85
89
98
110
113
115
121
129
132
135
159
varies

-4
2
2
10
2
2
2
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
45
-2
4
4
12
2
2
4
2
4
2
9
3
3
3
3
3
62
62
62
46
46

D

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

(ACA Standard)

C

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

-2
2
2
10
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
38
-1
2
4
12
2
2
4
2
4
2
6
2
2
2
2
2
51
51
51
46
46

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B

MAX No. of INMATES

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

GENERAL POPULATION

(Temp. Housing)

Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Thompson Hall - North 1
Rm 113, 147
Rm 105
Rm 109
Rm 111, 115, 149, 151, 153
Rm 108
Rm 107
Rm 110
Rm 148, 152
Rm 112
Rm 146
Rm 150
Rm 154
Rm 114
Rm 106
Thompson Hall - North 2
Thompson Hall - North 3
Rm 321
Rm 309, 313
Rm 301, 323
Rm 305, 307, 311, 315, 317, 319
Rm 304
Rm 303
Rm 324, 325
Rm 306
Rm 314, 318
Rm 308
Rm 312, 326, 327
Rm 322
Rm 316
Rm 320
Rm 310
Rm 302
Thompson Hall - South 1
Thompson Hall - South 2
Thompson Hall - South 3
Thompson Hall - East 2
Thompson Hall - East 3

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

MAX No. of INMATES

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

MEN

NORTH CENTRAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - GARDNER
(Custody Level: Medium)
(Date Built: 1975)

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

x

4

5

5

24

4

4

5

16

4

5

5

16

--

14

14

--

--

--

520

14

14

14

NA

NA
--

56
--

520

-4

4

5

16

4

5

5

16

4

4

5

16

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS

17 rooms (seg unit, not in count)

5

5

16

8
8
7

5
5
10

40
40
56
--

7

6

6

42

810

23

23

23

7

6

6

42

810

23

23

23

80

80
Add: 3 Showers

6 beds (not in count)
2 beds (not in count)
12 beds (not in count)
2 security cells (not in count)

426

80
--

----450

(MW) = Modular/Wood Building

- 332 -

568

14

4

235

1000

--

12
12
12

-----

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

--

--

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
6

(35SF per Inmate)

8
8
10
3
2
2
2
3
2

--

DAYROOM SF

576
574
704
242
154
173
173
198
129

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2

TOILETS

18
17
2
17
2
17
2
17
2
27
27
69

(1:8 Inmates)

1100
1098
117
1098
117
1098
117
1098
117
1892
1892
4838

SHOWERS

1
1
1
1

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2)

17
2
17
2

-25
17
2
-17
2
17
2
-18
17
2
17
2
17
2
17
2
54
54
138
-8
8
10
3
12
2
2
3
12

SINKS

1098
117
1098
117

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

948

1
1
1

F

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

x
x

25
17
2

E

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

1550
1098
117

D

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

(ACA Standard)

C

MAX No. of INMATES

Dorm
Dorm
Room
Dorm
Room
Dorm
Room
Dorm
Room

x

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

x
x
x
x

-16
28
2
-32
2
28
2
-16
28
2
28
2
28
2
28
2
68
66
80
-14
14
16
4
12
16
14
14
12
-----

INMATES PER ROOM

Dorm
Room
Dorm
Room

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B
SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

x
x
x

GENERAL POPULATION

(Temp. Housing)

Dorm
Dorm
Room

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Block 6 - B Building
Emergency Dorm
B1: Dorm Rm 3-33
B1: Dorm Rm 3-32
B1: Dorm Rm 3-7 to 3-23 (Seg Unit)
B1: Dorm Rm 2-1
B1: Dorm Rm 2-17
B1: Dorm Rm 2-6
B1: Dorm Rm 2-8
Block 9 - A Building
Emergency Dorm
A1: Dorm Rm 3-1
A1: Dorm Rm 3-17
A1: Dorm Rm 3-19
A1: Dorm Rm 3-8
A2: Dorm Rm 2-1
A2: Dorm Rm 2-16
A2: Dorm Rm 2-18
A2: Dorm Rm 2-8
Block H - Dorm (1st & 2nd flr)
Block G - Dorm (1st & 2nd flr)
Block I - Dorm I Bldg (MW) R-2
Block F (Dorm)
3-1
3-3
3-5
3-8
3-9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
2-1
2-3
2-5
2-9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
Health Services
At-Risk
Segregation
Intake

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

MAX No. of INMATES

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

MEN

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

North Central Correctional Institution – Medium and Minimum Security
Housing Capacity: (Continued)
NORTH CENTRAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION (MINIMUM) - GARDNER
(Custody Level: Minimum)
(Date Built: 1975)

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SF

MAX No. of INMATES

3
2

3
3

24
16

NA
NA

NA
NA

9

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS

30

30

30

30

Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 333 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

TOILETS

3
3

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

SHOWERS

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

SINKS

20
10

(1:8 Inmates)

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

INMATES PER ROOM

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

6
3

F
AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

30

Varies
Varies

E

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

20
10

D

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

(ACA Standard)

C

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B
SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

GENERAL POPULATION

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Locust (work unit) - floor 2
Locust (work unit) - floor 3

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

(35SF per Inmate)

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2)

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

30

30

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 334 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Northeastern Correctional Center
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

Barretts Mill Road
West Concord, MA 01742
1932
Minimum, Pre-release
132,491 gsf

Buildings

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 335 -

1. Gralton Hall (Housing)
2. Farm Dorm (Housing)

11,787 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOC0680

3. Programs (Housing)
4. Farm Bldgs
5. Storage Sheds

2,880 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOCPB29

6. Garage
7. Visiting/Recreation Center
8. Storage
9. Condemned Bldg (Piggery)

1,380 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOCPB26

28,644 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOC9501

32,464 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOCPB19
--

11,875 gsf / CAMIS ID 430DOC9502
---

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Northeastern Correctional Center
Description:
 The 300 acre site is organized in a campus/farm layout. The original facility opened in 1932 as a prison farm to supply meat and produce to the prison
system. The campus was expanded as follows: 1978 Work Release Building (Gralton Hall), 1984 Farm Buildings, 1988 Visitor/Gym building, 1996
wood modular Program building. Buildings are generally in good condition.
 There are two dining areas. One is for inmates and the other is part of a culinary program with the dining area open to the public.
 Interiors are in Good to Fair condition.
 Lack of storage space requires smaller orders that are not as cost-effective.
 The grounds include walking trails, basketball court, and ball field, as well as space for training NEADS dogs.
 Wastewater treatment is shared with MCI Concord.
 The facility is on town water and electric service.
 There are areas available on the site for expansion.
 The location of the Control Room does not adequately control inmate traffic, and public access in and out if the building.
 The gymnasium is closed during visiting hours, because they share the same space.
 There is only a single designated program room. Additional program space is needed.
 There is a 4-5 month waiting list for pre-release and minimum security beds at this facility.
 Access road and parking need paving.
Major Issues:
 Exterior façade repairs at farm dorm.
 Roof repair/replacement at all buildings.
 Replace Farm Dorm windows.
 Perimeter drain repairs at Farm Dorm.
 Equipment upgrades: Life safety, medical, industries training.
 Hayes Report, Life Safety, and ADA upgrades required.
 Utility survey and upgrades are required.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Boiler/steam line project
 Modular Replacement

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 336 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Northeastern Correctional Center
CAMIS Requested Projects:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
PRI
2

Proj
TYPE
Clean State

1
1
1
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5

DPH Required
DPH Required
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

PROJECT
Grease Trap Installation
NECC Life Safety Upgrade
Master Hot Water Mixing Station
New Water Meter Pit
Boiler Replacements
Replace Farm Dorm Kitchen windows
Shaker Farm House Restoration
Gralton Hall Roof Replacement
Farm Dorm Roof Replacement
Cow Barn Roof Replacement
Cumming House Roof Replacement
Concord Storage Barn #13 Roof Replacement
Farm Garage #11 Roof Replacement

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FACILITY
NECC
NECC
NECC
NECC
NECC
NECC
NECC
NECC
NECC
NECC
NECC
NECC
NECC

- 337 -

CAMIS
N0

COMMENTS

J000109600
J000109399

Fire Esc, Emerg Fire Doors and Door Alarms, MATV Sys.,
Windows

J000109400

Farm Dorm/Gralton Hall

J000105440
J000109401

Funding pending from DCAM.

J000109610
J000111150

Some repairs completed.

J000105456
J000105457
J000105459
J000109398
J000105461
J000105465

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

EST.
DURATION
COST
(in years)
$200,000
2
$400,000
$10,000
$55,000
$175,000
$125,000
$250,000
$353,610
$109,561
$105,300
$10,530
$118,800
$41,400
$1,954,201

1.5
1
1
2
1
1.5
1.5
1
1
1
1
1

Northeastern Correctional Center
Housing Capacity:
NORTHEASTERN CORRECTIONAL CENTER - WEST CONCORD
(Custody Level: Minimum / Pre-Release)
(Date Built: 1932)

3
3

22
22

24
24

22
22
22
10
12
26
24

22
22

3
3

22
22

24
24

3

4

4

24

350/NA

3

4

4

24

350/NA

1000/NA

137

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

--22
22
-22
22

COMMENTS
2 Segregation Cell (not in count)
4 Medical cells/beds (not in count)

IMPROVEMENTS

2 Holding cells (not in count)

Add: 3 Sinks, 2 Showers **, 2
Toilets

136

48
160

Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

- 338 -

150

24

** = or Shower Controls

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

267

--22
22
-22
22

24
24

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

F

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

22
22

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

(35SF per Inmate)

DAYROOM SF

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

TOILETS

(1:8 Inmates)

22
22

E

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

268

SHOWERS

2
4
22
22
2
22
22
11
5
6
13
12

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2)

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2

SINKS

INMATES PER ROOM

63
63
63
63
63
63
63
100
100
100
100
100

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

(Temp. Housing)

--39
44
-48
48
22
5
12
26
24

D

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

(ACA Standard)

C

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

x

GENERAL POPULATION

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Cell
Room
Room
Room
Cell
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Farm Dorm - Basement
Farm Dorm - 1W (single rm)
Farm Dorm - 1W
Farm Dorm - 1E
Farm Dorm - 1E Holding
Farm Dorm - 2W
Farm Dorm - 2E
Gralton Hall - 1E
Gralton Hall - 1W (single rm)
Gralton Hall - 1W (single rm)
Gralton Hall - 2E
Gralton Hall - 2W

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

MAX No. of INMATES

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Old Colony Correctional Center Medium
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:

1 Administration Drive
Bridgewater, MA
1987
Medium

Sq. Footage:

Buildings
1. Main Bldg.
1A Kitchen/Visitng/
Property
1B Laundry/P.S.
Ser./NMS/HSU
1C Voc. Ed./Shops/
Gym/Ind./Ind.
Warehouse
1D MPU/SAMP/Seg
2. Housing
3. Admin Bldg.
4. Yard Tower
5. Vehicle Trap

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 339 -

250,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOC9241

17,920 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOC9240
---

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Old Colony Correctional Center Medium
Description:
 The Old Colony Correctional Center (Medium) was completed in 1987 as a medium security, general population facility. It was built as a replacement
for the Southeastern Correctional Center. It houses a high percentage of sex offenders, older inmates, and 52A‟s. The building is a steel frame
structure with masonry infill and brick veneer exterior.
 There are six original housing pods consisting of 428 cells with 76 square feet each. In 1990, a housing unit with 60 precast concrete cells was added.
Each of the six original housing pods has an adjacent interior recreation courtyard. There is also a standard size gym.
 The food service area is limited because most of the food is prepared at the Bridgewater Complex Central Kitchen. The onsite cooking is limited to reheat and minor cooking. There is a single central dining area for all inmates except segregation.
 The Center shares central warehouse, water treatment facilities, and steam plant with the Bridgewater Complex.
 The intake area handles a higher volume of transports for a DOC facility due to the 52A inmates.
 The health services area has a clinic and an adjacent infirmary. The health clinic is used to serve inmates from other Bridgewater Complex facilities
that do not have the capability or level of security required.
 There is space within the secure perimeter for expansion.
Major Issues:
 Equipment in food and health service areas is marginal.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 None
CAMIS Requested Projects:
FY 08 -- FY11 Deferred Maintenance Requests for Correction and Sherriffs Facilities
Site

Site Name

Building Name

Project Number

DOC16 OLD COLONY CORRECTIONAL CENTER

OLD COLONY ADMINISTRATION J000106782

DOC16 OLD COLONY CORRECTIONAL CENTER

OLD COLONY CORRECTION

J000106956

Dec-10

Project Description

PhaseDescription

STEAM LINES REPAIR / OCCC DRM 200735

CONSTRUCTION
REPAIR / REPLACE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM OCCC DRM
REPAIR / REPLACE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM OCCC DRM 2007-53 2007-53
Total Requested:

Est Cost

Status

3,300,000 Requested
200,000 Requested
3,500,000

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
PRI
1
3
3
3
5

Proj
TYPE
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

PROJECT
Steam Line Repairs
Administration Building Roof Replacement
Facility Roof Replacement
Building 19 Roof Replacement
Repaving

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FACILITY
OCCC
OCCC
OCCC
OCCC
OCCC

- 340 -

CAMIS
N0
J000109426

COMMENTS
Design Complete, Temp connection awarded.

J000105668
J000105684
J000105685
J000109425

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

EST.
DURATION
COST
(in years)
$4,500,000
$358,400
1.5
$5,333,500
2
$40,000
1
$235,000
1
$10,466,900

Old Colony Correctional Center Medium
Housing Capacity:
OLD COLONY CORRECTIONAL CENTER - MEDIUM - BRIDGEWATER
(Custody Level: Medium)
(Date Built: 1987)

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SF

MAX No. of INMATES

30
30
30
60
60
60
60
60
60

32
32
32
64
64
64
64
64
64

576
576
576
576
576
576
576
576
576

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

76

2

60

120

60

10

60

80

4,876

139

488

16
16
32
16
16
16
16
16
16
(10)
80

COMMENTS
Protective Custody
Res. Treatment Unit
MPU - Seg. Unit

IMPROVEMENTS

**

Medical Unit (not in count)
52A Population

240

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 341 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

812

480

16
16
62
16
16
16
16
16
16
-80
270

* = Normally Single Bunked
(MC) = Modular/Concrete Building

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

TOILETS

4
4
4
8
8
8
8
8
8

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

SHOWERS

30
30
30
60
60
60
60
60
60

(35SF per Inmate)

SINKS

62
62
31
122
122
122
122
122
122

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

31
31
31
61
61
61
61
61
61

(1:8 Inmates)

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

2
2
2*
2
2
2
2
2
2

F
AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

820

E

76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

60
61
31
93
93
93
93
93
92
(10)
111

D

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

(ACA Standard)

C

INMATES PER ROOM

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B
SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

x
x

GENERAL POPULATION

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell/Dorm
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Sector C - Unit 1
Sector C - Unit 2
Sector C - Unit 3
Sector F
Sector G
Sector H
Sector J
Sector K
Sector L
Health Services Unit
Modular (MC)

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2)

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 342 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Old Colony Correctional Center – Minimum
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

One Administration Road
Bridgewater, MA 02324
1982
Minimum
33,887 gsf

Buildings
1. Admin/Programs (Modular)
2. Housing (Modular)

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 343 -

18,312 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPBA9

3. Visiting (Modular)
4. Gym/Storage (Modular)
5. Grounds Storage

14,175 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPB88

6. Recreation

800 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPBB9

8,640 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOC9211
600 gsf / CAMIS ID 715DOCPBB8

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Old Colony Correctional Center – Minimum
Description:
 The Old Colony Correctional Center (Minimum) was originally opened in 1982 as an addition to the South Eastern Correctional Center. In 2005, it was
separated from the closed SECC facility. It provides housing for inmates eligible for work assignments both inside and outside the Bridgewater
Complex. It has two modular wood structures in fair condition providing dormitory housing and an inmate visitation area.
 There are three dormitory housing units with a total of 160 beds.
 The facility lacks a food service area as most of the inmates work at the Central Kitchen and all meals are taken there. There is also no medical area
as those services are provided at OCCC (Medium).
Major Issues:
 The facilities two modular wood structures were designed and constructed to be temporary but they are now over 25 years old. The buildings are in
marginal condition requiring new roofs and repairs to exterior siding/trim. The toilet rooms are in fair to poor condition. The buildings should be
considered near the end of their serviceable life and will require replacement.
 The facility needs additional space for programs and interview rooms for attorney/client meetings.
 The facility has a major access road bisecting it. The layout of the facility should be reconsidered if either of the modular buildings is replaced.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Modular Replacement
CAMIS Requested Projects: See OCCC Medium

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 344 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Old Colony Correctional Center – Minimum
Housing Capacity:
OLD COLONY CORRECTIONAL CENTER - MINIMUM - BRIDGEWATER
(Custody Level: Minimum)
(Date Built: 1987)

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SF

MAX No. of INMATES

8
8
9

8
8
7

8
8
7

64
64
72

NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA

160

21

60
60
72

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS

Orientation Unit

192

(MW) = Modular/Wood Building
** = Add Shower Controls
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 345 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

156

100

60
60
72
192

** = Partial Housing Converted to Visiting

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

TOILETS

60
60
91

F
AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

SHOWERS

10
10
1

(35SF per Inmate)

SINKS

6
6
91

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

350
350
5471

(1:8 Inmates)

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

55
55
50

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

INMATES PER ROOM

E

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

D

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

(ACA Standard)

C

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

x
x
x

GENERAL POPULATION

TYPE
Dorm
Dorm
Dorm

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Unit A (MW)
Unit B (MW)
Unit C Visiting ** (MW)

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2)

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 346 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Pondville Correctional Center
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

1 Industries Drive
Norfolk, MA 02021
1990
Minimum, Pre-release
118,310 gsf

Buildings
Pondville Correctional Center
1. Main Bldg.
2. Recreation Bldg.
3. Maintenance Bldg.
Other Buildings
4. DOC Human Resources/IT
5. MASSCOR Industries Offices
6. MASSCOR Industries
7. MASSCOR Industries
8. Pump House
9. Water Tower

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 347 -

71,101 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB91
2,320 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB92
950 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB85

41,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB87
1,800 gsf / CAMIS ID 625DOCPB88
----

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Pondville Correctional Center
Description:
 The main building at the Pondville Correctional Center was constructed in 1975, with an addition in 1990. The facility houses minimum and pre-release
inmates in a “normalized” setting that allows them to move freely around the campus. The facility has 204 beds and all inmates are housed in dry
rooms.
 The main building and addition are in excellent condition, while smaller support buildings are in fair to good condition.
 There is lack of space for: programs, medical care, administrative functions, control/security/intake functions, staff meetings and training, food
preparation, counseling, visiting, and storage.
 There is space onsite for expansion.
 Water and sewage treatment is provided by the adjacent Norfolk Campus.
 As part of a four facility complex in Walpole and Norfolk, Pondville shares a restricted water supply that limits increases in inmate population.
Connection to the municipal water supply can remedy this situation.
Major Issues:
 All roofs need replacing
 The recreation building has moisture related issues including exterior wall deterioration.
 Bathroom showers need renovation. A hot water booster needs to be installed.
 Security: Perimeter door security system needs to be upgraded. Expand the exterior CCTV system. Street lights are needed on the access road.
 Medical equipment needs upgrade/replacement.
 Industries training equipment needs to be upgraded.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Program Building
CAMIS Requested Projects:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
PRI
1
1
3
4
4
4

Proj
TYPE
DPH Required
DPH Required
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

PROJECT
Replace Existing Showers
Hot Water Boosters
Automated Key system
Street Lights on Industries Drive
Maintenance Building Roof Replacement
Facility Roof Replacement

FACILITY
Pondville
Pondville
Pondville
Pondville
Pondville
Pondville

CAMIS
N0

COMMENTS

J000109577
J000109578
J000111170
J000109579
J000105620
J000105621

EST.
DURATION
COST
(in years)
$60,000
1
$50,000
1
$20,000
$60,000
1
$6,500
1
$426,606
2

$623,106

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 348 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Pondville Correctional Center
Housing Capacity:
PONDVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER - NORFOLK
(Custody Level: Minimum / Pre-Release)
(Date Built: 1990)

F

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SF

MAX No. of INMATES

7
2

5
2

5
2

40
16

NA
NA

NA
NA

40
16

2

2

2

16

NA

NA

16

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS
Add: 1 Sink, 1 Shower **, 1 Toilet
Add: 2 Sinks, 2 Shower **, 2 Toilet

3
(2) 5

3
5

3
5

24
40

NA
NA

NA
NA

24
34

6

6

6

48

NA

NA

48

Add: 1 Sinks, 1 Shower **, 1 Toilet

178

Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

- 349 -

30
34
56
210

** = or Shower Controls

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

193

100

48
26
16

Add: 1 Sinks, 1 Shower **, 1 Toilet

102

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

204

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

48
26
16
6
30
34
28
28

E

TOILETS

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

24
13
8
2
10
17
14
14

(1:8 Inmates)

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2

D

SHOWERS

INMATES PER ROOM

80
80
80
100
120
80
80
80

C

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

48
26
16
4
20
34
28
28

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

GENERAL POPULATION

(Temp. Housing)

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-3 HC
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4

B

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

(ACA Standard)

A

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

SLEEPING SPACE

(35SF per Inmate)

WOMEN

SINKS

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

South Middlesex Correctional Center
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

135 Western avenue
Framingham, MA 01701
2002
Minimum, Pre-release
74,884 gsf

Buildings

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 350 -

1. Main Building
2. Store Shed 2

52,600 gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOCPB17

3. Store Shed 1
4. Greenhouse
5. Garage

96 gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOC0501

6. House
7. Trailer

1,880 gsf / CAMIS ID 316DOC0801

80 gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOCPB16
1,110 gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOC0504
900 gsf / CAMIS ID 450DOC0503
--

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

South Middlesex Correctional Center
Description:
 The South Middlesex Correctional Center‟s main building is 3-stories with a fully occupied basement. It is steel frame and brick masonry structure
constructed in the 1930‟s. The Center was founded in 1976 and moved to its present site adjacent to MCI Framingham in 1981. Originally, the facility
housed male and female inmates but it became all female in 2002. It currently houses sentenced county and DOC female inmates.
 In 1990, a 2-story addition with air conditioning in the administration spaces was built.
 A two story garage that housed an automotive program at the site is not currently active.
 Greenhouse used for a horticultural program.
 A new house for the Family Reunification Center was recently constructed with donated funds and labor. It replaces a trailer that was used for the
parenting program.
 A central power plant at MCI Framingham provides heat. The heating system is inefficient and difficult to balance.
 There is insufficient space for library and programs. Five housing units have been converted to program or administrative space.
 There is insufficient space for intake, kitchen, laundry, health services, religious services, and warehouse storage. Public lobby and visitation space is
limited. There is no indoor children‟s play area.
Major Issues:
 The 3-story wood porch on the back of the main building needs replacement or extensive repairs.
 Slate roof needs repair.
 Equipment upgrades are needed for kitchen, maintenance, laundry, life safety, medical equipment, digital MATV system.
 Need to expand exterior/interior CCTV system.
 Hayes Report and accessibility upgrades required.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 Program Building
CAMIS Requested Projects:
FY 08 -- FY11 Deferred Maintenance Requests for Correction and Sherriffs Facilities
Site

Site Name

DOC19 SOUTH MIDDLESEX CORRECTIONAL CENTER

Building Name
GROUNDS

Project Number
J000108497

Dec-10

Project Description
SMCC SECURITY UPGRADES DRM 200859

PhaseDescription

Est Cost

Status

CONSTRUCTION

200,000 Requested

Total Requests:

200,000

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
PRI
3

Proj
TYPE
Infrastructure

PROJECT
Slate Roof Repairs and Rear Porch Demo

FACILITY
SMCC

CAMIS
N0

COMMENTS

J000109458

EST.
DURATION
COST
(in years)
$575,000
1

$575,000

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 351 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

South Middlesex Correctional Center
Housing Capacity: (Continued on Next Page)
SOUTH MIDDLESEX CORRECTIONAL CENTER - FRAMINGHAM
(Custody Level: Minimum/Pre-Release)
(Date Built: 2002)

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

4

4

4

32

4

4

4

32

- 352 -

225

IMPROVEMENTS

NA

32

Add: 1 Toilet

40

NA

32

Add: 1 Sinks, 1 Shower **, 1
Toilet

40

NA

30

30

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

32

COMMENTS

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

4

F

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

5

E

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

5

(35SF per Inmate)

MAX No. of INMATES

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

TOILETS

10
2
4
2
2
2
10
3
9
2
10
2
6
3
2
8
2
3
3
3
3
2
6
6
3
3
2
2
3
3

(1:8 Inmates)

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

5
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
3
1
5
1
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1

SHOWERS

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
3

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2)

INMATES PER ROOM

92
96
102
105
115
90
92
139
149
99
108
115
122
144
77
91
115
150
156
143
191
74
91
99
153
171
89
107
166
140

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

10
2
4
2
2
1
10
3
9
1
10
2
4
3
2
8
2
2
2
3
3
1
6
6
2
3
2
2
2
3

D

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

(ACA Standard)

C

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

GENERAL POPULATION

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Rm 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
Rm 205
Rm 202, 204
Rm 201
Rm 203
Rm 216
Rm 211, 212, 213, 214, 215
Rm 220
Rm 217, 218, 219
Rm 228
Rm 221, 222, 223, 224, 226
Rm 227
Rm 229, 230
Rm 225
Rm 239
Rm 234, 237, 238, 240
Rm 232
Rm 235
Rm 236
Rm 233
Rm 231
Rm 250
Rm 241, 242, 243
Rm 244, 246, 247
Rm 245
Rm 248
Rm 254
Rm 252
Rm 253
Rm 251

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

DAYROOM SF

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

SINKS

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

South Middlesex Correctional Center
Housing Capacity: (Continued)
SOUTH MIDDLESEX CORRECTIONAL CENTER - FRAMINGHAM
(Custody Level: Minimum/Pre-Release)
(Date Built: 2002)

NA

16

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS

Add: 2 Sinks, 2 Showers **, 2
Toilets

154

125

32

225
4

4

4

32

NA

23

23

4

4

4

32

NA

22

22

--87

(not in count)
(not in count)

---

155

187

** = or Shower Controls
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

16

F

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

2

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

2

(35SF per Inmate)

MAX No. of INMATES

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

2

E

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

186

TOILETS

2
3
8
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
14
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3

(1:8 Inmates)

1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

SHOWERS

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3

(1:6 Inmates, I-3) (1:8 Inmates, R-2)

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

99
158
108
112
150
86
96
144
158
119
154
126
154
117
140
145
168
96
117
126
134
140
168
175
165

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

INMATES PER ROOM

1
1
8
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
14
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
---

D

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

(ACA Standard)

C

MAX No. of INMATES

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B
SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

GENERAL POPULATION

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room
Room

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Rm 300
Rm 303
Rm 306, 307, 308, 309
Rm 311
Rm 305
Rm 301
Rm 304
Rm 310
Rm 302
Rm 318
Rm 319
Rm 317
Rm 320
Rm 321-324, 326, 328, 329
Rm 330
Rm 327
Rm 325
Rm 333
Rm 331
Rm 337
Rm 334
Rm 336
Rm 335
Rm 332
Rm 338
Health Services
Intake

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

DAYROOM SF

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

SINKS

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

- 353 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 354 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center
Address:

Year Opened:
Security Levels:
Sq. Footage:

P.O. Box 8000
Shirley, MA 01464
1998
Maximum
558,342 gsf

Buildings
1. Administration Building
2. B, C & D Sections
3. North Wing
4. South Wing
5. Vehicle Trap
6. Generator Bldg.
7. Quonset Shed
8. Chabot House

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 355 -

550,000 gsf / CAMIS ID 316DOCPB22

2,176 gsf / CAMIS ID 316DOCPB10
899 gsf / CAMIS ID 316DOCPB18
--

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center
Description:
 The Souza Baranowski Correctional Center was opened in 1998 on a 24.7 acre site within the large DOC Shirley Complex. The facility is DOC‟s
maximum security level institution as MCI Cedar Junction has been re-missioned to the DOC‟s “intake” facility. The main building is a steel frame
structure and the housing unit‟s cells are precast concrete.
 There are eight housing blocks and four segregation units containing 1152 cells with 81 square feet in each. The cells originally contained a single
bunk but a second bunk has been added to many cells to allow double bunking.
 Each housing unit has an interior recreation court and there are two large gyms.
 The facility has large support spaces with state of the art equipment. There is a large central dining facility with food service delivered to only the health
care, segregation and orientation units. The kitchen and laundry facilities have large commercial equipment capable of accommodating the increased
inmate population by increasing the hours of operation. The facility shares food storage in a central warehouse for the Shirley Complex.
 Medical services include well equipped areas for triage, dental, optometry, x-ray, tele-medicine facility, pharmacy, and psychiatric offices.
 The Voc-Ed area is vacant and can be repurposed for classrooms / program space.
Major Issues:
 The passenger style elevator that delivers supplies to the kitchen needs to be replaced with a freight elevator.
 The increased inmate population due to double bunking may require improvements to the main trap, visitation area, and inmate shower facilities.
Previously Requested Capital Projects:
 None
CAMIS Requested Projects:
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Deferred Maintenance Items from Urgent Capital Requests 2010
PRI
2
2
2
1
4

Proj
TYPE
Security
Security
Security
Infrastructure
Infrastructure

PROJECT
Security System Upgrade
Vehicle Trap design/construction
Inner Perimeter Fence Upgrades
Cell Light modifications
Light Level - Dark Skies Intiative

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

FACILITY
SBCC
SBCC
SBCC
SBCC
SBCC/Shirley

- 356 -

CAMIS
N0
J000109496

COMMENTS
Servers and fiber optic cabling

J000109497
J000109498
J000109499
J000109500

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

EST.
DURATION
COST
(in years)
$800,000
2
$2,000,000
4
$625,000
2
$500,000
2
$250,000
2
$4,175,000

Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center
Housing Capacity:
SOUZA-BARANOWSKI CORRECTIONAL CENTER - SHIRLEY
(Custody Level: Maximum)
(Date Built: 1998)

16
16
16
4
16
4
16
4
16
4
16
16

128
128
128
32
128
32
128
32
128
32
128
128

128
128
128
32
128
32
128
32
128
32
128
128

3,390
3,390
3,390
1,695
3,390
1,695
3,390
1,695
3,390
1,695
3,390
3,390

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

128
128
128
32
128
32
128
32
128
32
128
128

1280

1152

COMMENTS

IMPROVEMENTS
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**

1,152

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 357 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

1243

1024

256
256
256
64
256
64
256
64
256
64
256
256
2,304

** Shower access is limited for Max Security
*** Limited access to dayroom space for Max Security
Note: Red numerials indicate limiting factors on determining "CMP Baseline Capacity".

2009 DESIGN CAPACITY
(DOC QUARTERLY REPORT)

CMP BASELINE CAPACITY

128
128
128
32
128
32
128
32
128
32
128
128

AVERAGE DAILY POPULATION (ADP) 2009

MAX No. of INMATES

256
256
256
64
256
64
256
64
256
64
256
256

(per ACA & Mass Plumbing Code)

DAYROOM SF

128
128
128
32
128
32
128
32
128
32
128
128

(35SF per Inmate) ***

MAX No. of INMATES

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

(1:8 Male Inmates, 1:6 Female Inmates)

TOILETS

81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81

(1:8 Inmates) **

SHOWERS

128
128
128
64
128
64
128
64
128
64
128
128

Dorm - 25SF unemcumbered)

SINKS

F

MAX NUMBER OF BEDS

(Temp. Housing)

E

NUMBER OF CELLS / DORMS

x
x
x

D

INMATES PER ROOM

x
x

(ACA Standard)

C

SQUARE (Single - 35SF min unemcumbered
Double - 50SF unemcum. or 70SF Total
FEET

x
x

DAYROOM SPACE

(Mass Plumbing Code)

B

CURRENT NUMBER OF BEDS

x
x

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

(Temp. Housing)

x
x
x

GENERAL POPULATION

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CELL

TYPE
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell

GENERAL POPULATION

UNIT
Housing Block G
Housing Block H
Housing Block J
Housing Block J (Seg Cells)
Housing Block K
Housing Block K (Seg Cells)
Housing Block L
Housing Block L (Seg Cells)
Housing Block M
Housing Block M (Seg Cells)
Housing Block N
Housing Block P

PLUMBING FIXTURES

(ACA Standard)

A

POTENTIAL CAPACITY

SLEEPING SPACE

WOMEN

(1:6 Inmates)

MEN

REVISED ON: 10/8/2010

STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

- 358 -

CMP: Appendix B - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN FOR
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan
The Final Report

Appendix C
The Impact of Legislation on
Development Options

Appendix C – The Impact of Legislation on Development Options
Types of Legal Mandates
Any strategic plan for the future of the Commonwealth‟s correctional system requires a review of the legal and
regulatory requirements which currently drive the demand for prison and jail bed spaces. A necessary corollary of this
review is an analysis of which of these legal mandates may need to be revisited and modified in order to offer the
Commonwealth options for a safer, more rational and cost-effective criminal justice system.
Some legal mandates, such as mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug and violent offenses are set forth in
the Commonwealth‟s statutes, Massachusetts General Laws (“General Laws”), and would require legislative action in
order to change the practices they establish or define. Elements of the Chapter 256 of the Acts of 2010, effective
November 4, 2010, and well as the Governor‟s legislative proposals filed early in 2011 (House Bill Nos. 40, 41 and
42) for consideration and passage by the Legislature, address several of the legal impediments to a safer and more
efficient correctional system. This newly enacted and proposed legislation aims to enhance public safety by
eliminating some of the legal requirements that have added to a burgeoning prison and jail population marked by
high rates of recidivism. The Governor‟s legislative proposals will be discussed later in greater detail.
Other legal requirements are set out in the Code of Massachusetts (CMR) regulations, or in Department of Correction
policies, each of which includes a process for their revision, and both of which are less complicated than amending or
enacting a new statute. Still other mandates are laid out in State and Federal Court decrees, and would involve
approval of the Courts to change them. Finally, there are several practices, which though not required legally, are so
entrenched as to have taken on a legal “aura”. However, upon examination, it becomes apparent that they are
followed largely because either there are no appropriate alternatives, or because they have an historical basis, which
may be long obsolete, given the issues and challenges of criminal justice in the Commonwealth today.
Other States‟ Experiences and Issues Unique to Massachusetts
The complexities inherent in the administration of any criminal justice system are magnified in Massachusetts by the
overlapping responsibilities of the 14 county and State correctional systems. Moreover, certain legal requirements
constrain the ability of the Courts, the Commissioner of Correction and the Sheriffs to manage the correctional
system in a manner that will maximize public safety, increase efficiency, and respond to the multiple and complex
- 359 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

CMP: Appendix C - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Appendix C

needs of the inmates and detainees in custody. Some of these limitations mirror the experiences of other states;
many others are historical or political vestiges, entirely unique to the Commonwealth.
For example, significant increases in the number of incarcerated men and women serving mandatory minimum
sentences largely for drug offenses have created major challenges for many states, which are being addressed in
several states, including Texas and Kansas, through sentencing reform, drug and other specialty courts, and
innovative reentry planning.
Other issues like the civil commitment of men and women to the state prison system; the housing of inmates serving
sentences up to 30 months in county houses of correction; and the lack of legal authority allowing for the
“compassionate release” of terminally ill and infirm inmates, make Massachusetts an anomaly when compared to
other states. These unique qualities have exacerbated conditions of crowding in the Commonwealth‟s correctional
facilities, and contributed to a lack of clarity regarding the respective roles of the State and County correctional
systems.
The Governor‟s Filed Legislation:
On January 26, 2011 and February 3, 2011, Governor Deval Patrick filed legislation, „An Act Relative to Criminal
Sentencing‟ (House Bill 40) and „An Act Reforming Re-Entry and Community Supervision‟ (House Bill 42) to provide
police and prosecutors tools needed to target and incapacitate violent and repeat offenders while providing better
opportunities for re-entry and rehabilitation of offenders. The legislation provides vital tools for reducing recidivism
and managing crowded prisons by requiring supervised release of all State prison inmates after they serve their
sentence and by permitting movement of inmates, as appropriate, to lower levels of security, work release, and
community supervision. The Governor‟s proposed legislation includes provisions in the following areas:


Elimination of Mandatory Minimum Sentences for drug crimes in Chapter 94C of the General Laws that
do not involve guns or children.



Parole Eligibility after serving ½ of their maximum sentence for inmates already serving mandatory
minimum sentences for a drug crime, unless the offense involved violence, dangerous weapons or children,
consistent with current state law for county inmates.



Maximum Sentences for Violent Repeat Offenders with two prior felony convictions



Parole Ineligibility for habitual offenders until serving two thirds of the maximum sentence.



Mandatory Post-Release Supervision of all inmates who serve a State prison sentence and are
scheduled to be released to the street.



Work Release available for all inmates serving mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.



Earned Good Time increasingly available for inmates while incarcerated and upon successfully completing
community supervision.



Medical release for prisoners too ill to commit additional crimes.



Redefinition of „state prison‟ will allow the DOC more flexibility in the use of its facilities.

-360 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

CMP: Appendix C - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Appendix C



Mandated sharing of medical information among state prisons, houses of correction, and the Department
of Mental Health facilities.

Legal Issues Impacting Correctional Bed Space Demand
The legal issues which are the most prominent drivers of bed space demand, whether in numbers or type, in the
Commonwealth‟s jails and prisons can be divided into several broad areas:
1. Sentencing restrictions which require judges to assign mandatory minimum sentences to certain offenses;
2. Statutes and policies that limit effective reentry planning by restricting the “stepping down” or transitioning from
higher to lower security levels, or which restrict access to minimum/pre-release/work release status;
3. Legal requirements that call for the separation of certain populations;
4. Statutes which allow for civil commitments of certain populations to the Department of Correction for clinical
evaluation and/or treatment;
5. Legal impediments to the ability of the Courts, the Commissioner of Correction or the Sheriffs to house and place
inmates in County or State facilities or programs they deem appropriate to meet the inmates‟ needs while
protecting public safety;
6. Statutes and practices which drive the numbers and lengths of stay of pre-trial detainees held in the
Commonwealth‟s lock-ups and jails; and;
7. Statutes and practices which result in an inefficient and outdated pre-arraignment process.
The single greatest “driver” of prison population is sentencing statutes and practices, followed by policies that
govern the administration of the correctional system. The following sections highlight some of the laws,
guidelines, and policies that have the greatest impact upon the size and profile of the correctional system in
Massachusetts:
a) Sentencing restrictions which require judges to assign mandatory minimum sentences to certain
offenses.
In Massachusetts, as in many other states, the “get tough on crime” trend of the 1980‟s and 1990‟s resulted in
the enactment of mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug, firearm, “operating under the influence”, and
violent offenses. These mandatory minimum sentences have required judges to sentence certain offenders for
longer periods of time than they might otherwise have, if they were left with more traditional, more discretionary
sentencing guidelines. This trend has been strong with respect to drug offenses. According to DOC records, in
1973 drug offenses accounted for 10.6% of its population; today 26% of DOC inmates are incarcerated for drug
offenses.
Besides lengthier sentences, an unintended result of removing judicial discretion from the sentencing equation
has been that judges, who may have assigned sentences with ranges of several years between the minimum
and maximum time to be served, but are constrained to impose a mandatory minimum sentence greater than
they would otherwise choose, frequently compensate by meting out a maximum sentence only one day longer

-361 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

CMP: Appendix C - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Appendix C

than the mandatory minimum. An unfortunate and inadvertent consequence of this type of sentencing practice is
that it effectively prevents offenders from ever achieving eligibility for post-release supervision.
Indeed, the Final Report of the Governor’s Commission on Correction Reform (2004) (the “Harshbarger
Commission” or “Harshbarger Report”), citing the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission, found that 47% of
offenders given a state prison sentence in 2002 received a sentence with only a one day difference between the
minimum and maximum sentence. This sentencing practice effectively prevents parole eligibility, since the 1993
Truth in Sentencing Act set parole eligibility at the minimum sentence. The one day difference sentencing
practice is also a barrier to placement in pre-release, as described in the following section.
In 1994, the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission was established and began to promote uniform sentencing
guidelines. Legislation based on the efforts of the Sentencing Commission which has been pending before the
Legislature since 1996, would reduce disparities in sentencing while also allowing for discretion on the part of
judges.
The Harshbarger Commission noted that over the past few years, numerous task force reports and other
publications have addressed the negative impact of mandatory sentencing laws and practices on successful
reentry in the Commonwealth, including: From Cell to Street; Boston Bar Association Task Force on Parole and
Community Reintegration; Parole Practices in Massachusetts and Their Effect on Community Reintegration; The
Governor’s Commission on Criminal Justice Innovation Final Report; and Crime & Justice Institute, From
Incarceration to Community: A Roadmap to Improving Prisoner Reentry and System Accountability in
Massachusetts.
As mentioned previously, the Governor recently submitted legislative recommendations to the Legislature for
consideration and passage. The Governor‟s package includes provisions eliminating mandatory minimum
sentences for drug offenders who do not use guns or involve children, expanding parole eligibility for drug
offenders currently serving mandatory minimum sentences, as well as requiring tougher sentences for repeat,
violent offenders and mandatory post-release supervision for all offenders released from the State prison system
directly to the street. The Governor‟s proposals signal a commitment on the part of the Executive branch to
reforming the criminal justice system, and warrants renewed attention on these issues and speedy passage of
the pending bills by the Legislature.
b) Statutes and policies that limit effective reentry planning by restricting the “stepping down” or
transitioning out of higher to lower security levels, or which restrict access to minimum/pre-release/work
release status.
Many of the sentences which call for mandatory minimum sentences also include express prohibitions on the
offender‟s transition to lower security housing and programs. These statutes specifically prohibit work release or
pre-release for the entire mandatory portion of the sentence. Certain DOC policies also restrict inmates‟ access
to work release and/or lower security housing; however, the vast majority of inmates whose placement is
influenced by these policies are also affected by the superseding statutory restrictions. In either case, the
inability to become parole-eligible coupled with restrictions on inmates‟ “stepping down” from higher to lower
security as their behavior warrants, has created a situation in which inmates are getting released directly from
higher custody settings, such as maximum and medium security housing, with no preparation or formal
supervision in the community through parole or probation.

-362 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

CMP: Appendix C - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Appendix C

As noted in the Harshbarger Report, these statutory restrictions have impeded the vast majority of the DOC
population from participating in effective reentry. The Harshbarger Commission classified these statutory
impediments into the following areas:


Mandatory minimum sentence - These statutes specifically prohibit pre-release for the entire mandatory
portion of the sentence. Mandatory minimum sentences are generally crimes of violence, firearms offenses,
drug offenses, and “driving under the influence” offenses.



Parole eligibility- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 127, § 49 provides that the Commissioner may permit inmates to
participate in pre-release programs if they are within 18 months of parole eligibility.



Prohibited crimes - Certain enumerated offenses provide that even once the offender is within 18 months
of parole eligibility, he/she is precluded from participation in pre-release programs except upon
recommendation of the Superintendent.



Work release limits - Various laws permit work release during the mandatory term of the sentence, only in
the custody of an officer, upon recommendation of a Superintendent.

In 2004 and 2007, the DOC Research Division completed comprehensive reports on the numbers of inmates
affected by DOC policies and statutory restrictions that restricted their access to work release programs and
minimum or pre-release housing. (See, Kohl, Rhiana, Ph. D. Policy and Statutory Restrictions on Inmate
Placement (MADOC, January 2004); Statutory Restrictions & Other Sentencing Impacts Report (MADOC,
April 2007)). The DOC reports divided the statutory restrictions into two broader, general categories:
1) The time served by an inmate in relation to his/her parole eligibility date; and,
2) Mandatory sentencing restrictions associated with the crime or crimes for which they were sentenced.
With regard to inmates‟ parole eligibility dates, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 127, § 49 provides in relevant part that:
The commissioner of correction ... may permit an inmate who has served such a portion of his
sentence or sentences that he would be eligible for parole within eighteen months to participate
in education, training, or employment programs established under section forty-eight outside a
correctional facility. (Emphasis added).
Moreover, there are nearly a hundred separate crimes in the Commonwealth which include restrictions to work
release or classification to pre-release status; indeed, a snap shot of the DOC population in 2007 showed that
87% of all DOC inmates or 8,673 individuals were potentially restricted by either a statutory restriction or the
18-month proximity to parole eligibility restriction. Of the 8,673 restricted inmates, 7,859 were subject to a
mandatory statute and 814 were not subject to a mandatory statute, but were not within 18 months of parole
eligibility.
The 2007 analysis also showed that 4,466 of all inmates or 45% of the total inmate population on a given day
were not yet within 18 months of their parole eligibility dates. Adding the 885 inmates serving first degree life
sentences, who, by statute, have no parole eligibility dates, a total of 5,361 inmates or 54% of the inmate
population were not eligible for parole.

-363 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

CMP: Appendix C - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Appendix C

In addition to these statutory restrictions on inmate placement, the Harshbarger Commission found that the
Department of Correction had five internal policies that restricted inmate classification and pre-release. Though
DOC‟s analysis revealed that statutory restrictions superseded the internal DOC policy restrictions, the
Harshbarger Report stated that as of December 10, 2003, 49% of the inmate population was restricted by one or
more DOC policies. In any case, these restrictions are in the following categories:






Sex offenders are restricted from lower security level facilities until program requirements specific to sex
offenders have been met. They are also considered an escape risk because they face civil commitment.
The Public Safety Security Program requires that any inmate serving a sentence with parole eligibility for
Murder in the 2nd Degree, Manslaughter, Mayhem, Armed Assault with Intent to Murder, or a sex offense
must have the approval of the Parole Board prior to being classified to a minimum security level facility.
Members or suspected members of Security Threat Groups are restricted from minimum security unless
they agree to renounce their membership in the group and the DOC accepts it.
The DOC‟s Security Risk Rating system includes placement restrictions for offenders with certain security
ratings.
Those serving 1st Degree Life sentences without the possibility of parole are restricted from Level 2
(minimum security) or below.

The Harshbarger Report stated that the policies on Public Safety Security Program, Security Threat Groups, and
Security Risk Ratings were under review, and an update of their status is pending.
As discussed previously, the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission and several other task forces and special
commissions have uniformly recommended sentencing reform to address some of these issues. The
Department of Correction has also filed legislation that would remove certain restrictions on the “stepping down”
from higher to lower security levels in order to create conditions that support more effective reentry into the
community. The recently filed Governor‟s proposals include legislation that would allow for access to work
release programs for drug offenders with the approval of the Commissioner or the Sheriff upon the
recommendation of the Superintendent. These legislative bills deserve special focus and timely enactment by
the Legislature.
c) Legal requirements that require the separation of certain populations.
A critical tool in the operation of correctional systems is ability to utilize beds and common areas in the most
flexible manner possible; that is, to give administrators discretion in determining bed and facility assignments for
offenders in their custody. Given that jails and prisons are faced with an influx of men and women with a wide
range of precipitating offenses, current behaviors, clinical needs, ages, and physical stature, the broadest
degree of flexibility results in the greatest efficiencies. To the extent that the law limits the discretion of
administrators by requiring separations of certain populations, there is a corresponding loss in the efficient use of
common areas and bed spaces.
In Massachusetts, there are statutes and court decrees, which require separation of certain populations. For
example, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 127, § 22 states that, “[m]ale and female prisoners shall not be put or kept in
the same room in a jail or house of correction [Emphasis added]. According to the DOC Legal Department, this
statute was originally enacted in 1817, and last amended in 1902.
While a literal reading of this section calls for a separation of men and women, this provision was last reviewed
over 100 years ago. Additionally, an argument could be made that while this statute may limit the co-housing of
men and women, common areas such as dining rooms, medical waiting areas, day rooms, outdoor recreation
-364 STV Incorporated in association with Carter Goble Lee

CMP: Appendix C - DECEMBER 2011

A SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONS

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Capital Asset Management
Corrections Master Plan, DOC 0801ST1

The Corrections Master Plan – The Final Report

Appendix C

space, and gyms are not covered by its restrictions, and that men and women can potentially attend programs,
eat meals and wait for clinical appointments in the same areas simultaneously.
A similar statutory provision prohibits housing pre-trial and sentenced populations together. Mass. Gen. Laws ch.
127, § 22 states that, “[p]ersons committed on charge of crime shall not be confined with convicts.” [Emphasis
added]. Like the statutory prohibition covering men and women, this provision was originally enacted in 1817,
and last amended in 1902. A parallel argument can be made that “confined” means “housed together”, and that
there is no express prohibition against pre-trial and sentenced populations sharing common areas and
participating in programs simultaneously. In addition, the DOC is required by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 125, § 16
to maintain a “separate awaiting trail unit for females” at MCI Framingham.
Moreover, in certain specialized facilities or units, like Bridgewater State Hospital; the Lemuel Shattuck Hospital;
or jail and prison infirmaries or mental health units, pre-trial, sentenced and civil inmates and patients are
routinely and necessarily housed together for evaluation and treatment. Clearly, co-locating inmates based on
their clinical or security needs, rather than by legal status and gender creates the most responsive and efficient
use of space. However, civil commitments to the Massachusetts Alcohol and Substance Abuse Center are
required to be “housed and treated separately from convicted criminals”. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 125, § 35.
At the Treatment Center, civilly committed and criminally sentenced sex offenders must be kept completely
separated in their housing and activities, as required by over twenty years of Federal and State Court litigation
and oversight of that facility. (See, e.g., Durfee, et al v. Maloney, et al, Suffolk Sup. Ct. CA# SUCV1998025230B which requires complete separation of the criminal and civil populations, and King v. Greenblatt, 53 F.
Supp. 117 (D.Mass. 1999), which authorized assumption of full responsibility for the Treatment Center by DOC
in accordance with a DOC Management Plan). Similarly, a 1990 statute requires that treatment center patients
“shall at all times remain separate and apart from department of corrections inmates.” St.1990, c. 150, section
104.
In most states, classification decisions for pre-trial and sentenced populations are made utilizing the same
objective criteria. While a detainee‟s or inmate‟s legal status may be one indicator used in a classification
determination, the populations typically may be co-housed and use common areas simultaneously. A review of
the historical bases for these “separation” statutes in Massachusetts is warranted so that their utility and
necessity in today‟s correctional environment can be revisited.
d) Statutes and practices which allow for civil commitments of certain populations to the Department of
Correction for clinical evaluation and/or treatment.
Adding to the complexity of the challenges facing the Massachusetts correctional system is the fact that the
Department of Correction holds several populations, or up to 850 individuals on any given day, which are not
traditionally or typically the responsibility of criminal justice systems, let alone correctional agencies. These men
and women are transferred by the courts under civil commitment provisions to the Department of Correction for
evaluation or treatment for mental health, substance abuse, or sexual disorders.
This misalignment between the “care, custody, and control” charge of the State prisons and the clinical needs of
these populations creates unrealistic and untenable expectations of the Department of Correction, and detracts
from the core purpose and function of the prison system. Indeed, in most every other state in the country, most,
if not all of these individuals would be the resp