WeVote

Bill

Bill

S 142

Increases from twenty-four to sixty months, the time for which reconsideration for parole for a violent felony offense shall be determined

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Pam Helming and 5 co-sponsors

Massachusetts bill requires DCF to adopt bias-free reviews for emergency child removals, redact demographics, create dedicated bias-free teams, and report annually on impacts.

REFERRED TO CRIME VICTIMS, CRIME AND CORRECTION
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 142

Note: the materials you provided include multiple, conflicting texts under the same bill number (S 142). Below I summarize each distinct bill text I found and flag inconsistencies. Tell me which one you want expanded or if you intended a different S 142.

Summary — Version A: Parole Reconsideration Time Increase (title from provided header)

Status: Referred to Crime Victims, Crime and Correction (as provided) | Introduced: Jan 16, 2025

Purpose
- To increase the time period between parole reconsiderations for persons convicted of a violent felony from 24 months to 60 months.

Key provisions (based on the title only)
- Amend existing parole rules/statute to lengthen the minimum interval before the parole board is required or permitted to reconsider parole for a violent felony offender from two years (24 months) to five years (60 months).
- Would likely apply to initial parole denial reconsideration scheduling and possibly to subsequent denials, depending on statutory language.

Who is affected
- Individuals incarcerated for violent felonies subject to parole review.
- Parole boards and corrections agencies (administrative scheduling and case processing).
- Victims and victim-advocacy groups (longer intervals between reconsideration hearings).

Procedural/timing implications
- Longer intervals may reduce frequency of hearings, affect caseloads, and change reentry timelines.
- Specific retroactivity, application to current prisoners, and any exceptions are unknown from the title alone.

Note: No full bill text for this version was provided; the summary is necessarily high-level. If you want a detailed analysis, please provide the full text or confirm this is the intended bill.

Summary — Version B: Wildland Firefighters Congressional Gold Medal Act (U.S. Senate S.142, introduced Jan 16, 2025)

Status: Read twice; referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

Purpose
- To award a single Congressional Gold Medal to wildland firefighters collectively, in recognition of their service, sacrifice, and protection of U.S. forests, grasslands, and communities.

Key provisions
- Findings documenting increased wildfire risk, the role and risks of wildland firefighters, interagency and international cooperation, and recognition events (National Wildland Firefighter Day on July 2; Week of Remembrance June 30–July 6).
- Authorizes the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate to arrange presentation of one appropriately designed gold medal in honor of wildland firefighters.
- Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to design and strike the medal (standard Congressional Gold Medal procedures).

Who is affected
- Wildland firefighters (Federal, State, local, contract, volunteer) as honorees.
- Treasury and congressional offices for design/presentation logistics.

Procedural/timing aspects
- Standard congressional gold medal authorization; costs and disposition (e.g., how many duplicates struck in bronze) follow Treasury rules (not fully provided in excerpt).

Sponsors: John Barrasso (lead), with several Senate cosponsors listed in your materials.

Summary — Version C: Massachusetts — “An Act relative to bias-free child removals” (Senate Docket No. 1694 / Senate No. 142)

Status: Filed Jan 16, 2025; referred to Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities (hearing scheduled July 8, 2025 per materials)

Purpose
- Require the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) to implement a “bias-free” review process for proposed emergency child removals to reduce demographic-based bias in removal decisions.

Key provisions
- Defines “bias-free” review as examining case files with identifying demographic information removed (gender, race, ethnicity, disability, geographic location, socioeconomic status, etc.) so decisions focus on safety evidence.
- Requires DCF to develop a permanent Bias‑Free Case Review Team in each Area Office (minimum three staff) to screen all proposed emergency removals under G.L. c.119, §51B.
- Specifies the demographic/identifying items to be redacted (name; race/ethnicity except when relevant; sexual orientation or gender identity except when relevant; religion; disability status except when relevant; political affiliation; marital status; income; education; location references).
- Requires annual training for Review Team staff.
- Requires annual evaluation/report to the Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities analyzing implementation and impacts on removal rates for Black, Indigenous, and children of color.

Who is affected
- Children and families under DCF jurisdiction, particularly BIPOC and other demographic groups.
- DCF staff and Area Offices (operational and training requirements).
- State legislature (receives annual impact reports).

Procedural/timing aspects
- Implementation and training schedules to be set by DCF; annual reporting required.
- Hearing scheduled; further committee action will determine enactment.

If you want a single focused, detailed (200–500 word) summary and impact analysis for any one of these versions (or you can provide the exact bill text you intend), I can produce that next.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.