Bill
S 1726
Creates incarcerated persons councils in Massachusetts state and county prisons to give inmates a voice, improve safety and rehabilitation, with elections and regular meetings.
Note on inconsistencies
- The materials supplied contain conflicting metadata (a title referencing an “Automotive Support Services… ASSIST Act of 2025” and a sponsor list that mixes federal and state names). The bill text and docket number (Senate No. 1726 / Senate Docket No. 2217) identify this measure as a Massachusetts bill, presented by Senator Liz Miranda and titled “An Act relative to incarcerated persons councils.” This summary follows the bill text as filed 01/17/2025.
Purpose and intent
- Establish formal, institution-level incarcerated persons councils in Massachusetts state prisons, state correctional facilities, and county correctional facilities to improve communication between incarcerated people and facility administration, promote safety and constructive conflict resolution, and support development of rehabilitative programming and policy review.
Key provisions
- Definitions: clarifies terms such as “department” (Department of Correction), “incarcerated person,” and facility types.
- Creation of councils: each state prison, state correctional facility, and county correctional facility must create an incarcerated persons council of 5–15 members drawn from the facility’s incarcerated population.
- Eligibility and selection:
- Members are elected by the incarcerated population at least once per year.
- Candidates must have been incarcerated in the facility at least 6 months prior to election.
- Candidates must have no history of violent misconduct or disciplinary violations in the past year and must not be serving sentences for institutional violence or escape.
- Terms are one year; members may be re-elected.
- Members may be removed by majority vote of the council subject to administrative review/approval.
- Duties and meetings:
- Councils act as liaisons, provide a forum for concerns, promote conflict resolution, advocate for educational/rehabilitative/vocational programs, assist with safety and discipline, and review policies (including healthcare, food, visitation).
- Councils must meet at least monthly and submit written activity/recommendation reports quarterly to facility administration.
- Facility administration must meet with the council at least twice per year to review concerns and recommendations.
- Protections, resources, and oversight:
- Participation is protected from retaliation; administration must ensure no adverse actions for council participation.
- Facilities must allocate funds, meeting space, and communication tools for council operations.
- The Department of Correction must promulgate regulations governing elections, codes of conduct, duties, and must review council effectiveness every two years with recommended improvements.
Who is affected
- Incarcerated people in Massachusetts state and county correctional facilities (eligible to vote, run for council, or be impacted by council recommendations).
- Prison/correctional facility administrations and the Department of Correction (responsible for implementation, funding, oversight, and rulemaking).
- Potential downstream effects on programming providers, healthcare and visitation policies, and facility operations.
Procedural status (as reported)
- Filed in Senate: 01/17/2025 (Senate Docket No. 2217 / Senate No. 1726), presented by Sen. Liz Miranda.
- Referred to committee(s): entries show referral to Public Safety and Homeland Security and earlier referrals to Judiciary; a hearing was scheduled for 06/26/2025.
- Status as of 06/13/2025: COMMITTED TO RULES.
- Note: the legislative action log contains duplicated and conflicting entries; readers should consult the official Massachusetts legislative website for the latest status and official history.
Potential impacts and considerations
- Expected benefits: improved channels for grievances and suggestions, increased resident participation in institutional governance, potential reductions in conflict and improved rehabilitative programming.
- Practical considerations: administrative costs and staff time to support councils; need for clear, enforced anti-retaliation protections; effectiveness will depend on department regulations, facility buy-in, and the integrity of election and reporting processes.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
