Would any of your employers give you an approved budget for the year AND also a blank check? If you told them later that you needed more money, would they later sign the check without even asking what it was for? This is exactly what our state legislature has done for the 14 sheriffs in Massachusetts for many years as noted in two recent Boston Globe editorials, “This is the year to reign in free-spending sheriffs” and “Massachusetts sheriffs own up to empire building as budget cuts loom.” 

Unlike other states with broader county-level governments, the responsibilities of sheriffs in Massachusetts are relatively limited.They are for county jails and departments of correction, including providing for the needs of incarcerated people. Their budgets are supplied by the state legislature and have come into scrutiny in recent months, resulting in an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General. 

The Office of the Inspector General’s preliminary report “found that the sheriffs’ budget process has become opaque, chaotic and deeply flawed.” Most significantly the Inspector General also noted that “there is a lack of transparency and accountability in the supplemental budgeting report process.” In essence, the sheriff’s offices regularly overspend their allocated annual budgets with the understanding that the legislature will cover cost overruns through “supplemental budgets” passed outside the regular budget process, without hearings and with few if any line items. For years, our legislature continued this routine funding process even as the jail population has decreased. The Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association 2025 Operational Capacity Report notes that their jails and “houses of correction” are about half empty throughout the state.The State Auditor’s report also found that the Association was not compliant with its reporting as required by the legislature.

As someone who has worked in the criminal justice system in Massachusetts for 20 years, I have been in almost every prison and jail throughout the state and know firsthand the critical need for community integration programs upon release and services for incarcerated individuals who have a high rate of mental health and medical problems. Due to the legislature’s current budgeting process, which includes very few specific line items, it’s not possible to know if the sheriffs’ budgets go to less crucial needs instead. However, the Boston Globe editorial shows that it does exactly that. Many of the sheriffs spend their budgets on things that have nothing to do with the mandates of their office. This includes sheriff deputies being assigned to work in police departments and one sheriff using funds to staff a harbormaster position for the town of Winthrop instead of staffing their own jails. 

As noted, the legislature had major responsibility in allowing this process. As the Boston Globe puts it: “Sheriffs, of course, didn’t build these little empires on their own. They had the quiet support of state lawmakers, for whom the opaque sheriffs’ budgets were ways of delivering goodies to their districts, thus creating a hodge-podge of programs, standards, and duties, while enhancing the fiefdoms run by elected county sheriffs.” 

Another major problem for our state is Gov. Healey’s plan to build a new medium security prison complex at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution-Framingham, the only state prison for women. It already costs $227,503 annually to incarcerate just one woman in this facility. Gov. Healey plans to use at least $361 million of bond money to build the new prison. Bonds are similar to loans, because they come with interest or “debt service” that must be paid each year, meaning the total cost of any capital project is higher than the amount of the bond.

Although some groups have had discussions with executive branch staff, the most critical questions have not been answered and our access to information from public records is limited. For example, why has the administration rejected alternatives to pouring millions into prison construction, some of which were identified by their own consultants? Why is it planning to forge ahead with a medium security prison when the large majority of women meet DOC criteria for minimum security or prerelease status by the Department’s own assessment? Why is it hiring a construction manager before even revealing to the public the number of women the prison is being designed for?

Generations of women, particularly those of color and who are poor, will be hurt by this decision to keep them in an overly restrictive prison and taxpayers will be paying for something that the state doesn’t need. The lack of transparency about the administration’s decision-making is one more example of the importance of passing “An Act Extending Public Records Law to the Governor and Legislature” (Bill S.2064).

With Massachusetts facing more than $3 billion in federal cuts, both the executive and legislative branches of government need to be more accountable and transparent on how financial decisions are made. Openness with its citizens will help restore the public’s trust in their state government.

Blog post by Norma Wassel. Norma is a member of the Women and Incarceration Project at the Center for Women’s Health and Human Rights. She is the former Director of Social Work, Public Defender Division, Committee for Public Counsel Services. She also advocates for legislative transparency as a founding member of the Cambridge Committee for Transparency and Accountability.