Sex Offenders in Massachusetts Cost the State Upwards Of $500K Per Person Annually for Incarceration and Treatment
The Massachusetts Department of Correction Per Capita Cost Report is an annual analysis of the Department’s spending, designed to pinpoint cost-saving strategies for future budgets.
As 2024 comes to a close, it’s a good time to review the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) budget from the past year and consider the potential changes or influences 2025 might bring.
Staffing and employee expenses have historically been the largest costs for the DOC. From 2018 to the present, these expenses have consistently been around half a billion dollars annually.
Despite a declining inmate population, the DOC budget continues to increase. Spending on inmate programming has decreased, while funding for treatment programs has remained consistently strong.
From slices of pizza offered in pre-trial detention lock-up, to daily meals in the house of correction, the cost of feeding inmates has also stayed relatively consistent.
The DOC’s operational budget has increased by over $69 million in recent years. Overall, the budget has risen by more than $74 million, which includes funding for re-entry programs, substance abuse treatment, and other support services.
Some Inmates Cost More To Incarcerate Than Others
When it comes to treatment, alcohol and substance abuse programs are the most expensive, with a yearly budget of $22 million. Many inmates undergo withdrawal from severe drug addictions while incarcerated. Massachusetts funds their recovery, including through Section 35 — a form of civil commitment and incarceration that offers rehabilitation to inmates with substance use disorders.
Substance use disorders aren’t the only conditions the state covers. The most expensive demographic to treat are sex offenders.
In Massachusetts, sex offenders can be civilly committed and sent to Mass Treatment Center in Bridgewater, shorthand “Bridgewater,” which operates more like a prison under the guise of providing treatment.
At Bridgewater, sex offenders receive therapy, group counseling, medication, and intensive treatment aimed at addressing their mental disorders. Inmates cannot leave until they are deemed “cured,” a vague and discretionary determination that is difficult to achieve. As a result, many individuals civilly committed to Bridgewater end up spending their lives there, never meeting the criteria for release.
Legally, civil commitment at Bridgewater is a means for the state to incarcerate someone for life without violating their constitutional rights. The practice gained popularity in the 1990s after the horrific crime committed by sex offender Earl Shriner, who brutally mutilated a young boy in Washington, known as the “Tacoma Boy” case. Shriner had a history of incarceration but had never committed a crime that would justify a life sentence. In response to the growing problem of repeat offenders cycling in and out of prison, Washington introduced one of the first civil commitment statutes, allowing the state to imprison individuals for life without a criminal conviction.
The most recent DOC budget report disclosed that treatment per inmate at Bridgewater costs $331,731 per year. And for those who are elderly or at a long term hospital, that number rises above half a million dollars at $523,010.
Does Sex Offender Treatment Work?
Wondering if sex offender treatment works at Bridgewater is much like questioning whether prison effectively rehabilitates sex offenders. There are striking similarities in how Bridgewater operates, with many viewing it as essentially interchangeable with prison.
In some ways, Bridgewater may even be more traumatizing than prison. An investigation by the Disability Law Center uncovered serious issues with involuntary medication and restraints, highlighting practices that result in violent and dehumanizing experiences for patients. The report described instances where staff, dressed in riot gear, would enter cells, force individuals onto their beds with a plexiglass shield, and hold them face-down, exposing their buttocks for a nurse to administer intramuscular injections.
In one video viewed by the Disability Law Center, a patient, “Abdul” was held in a locked interview room on the unit. When he was ordered into seclusion, 4 staff members entered the room and chased Abdul as he ran away from the door, terrified and cowering in the confined space. Staff pulled Abdul by his arms as his shirt lifted over his chest, and dragged him by the arms out of the interview room, through the hallway, and to the main entrance area of the unit.
There, 9 staff members stood watching the incident with 1 recording it using a handheld camera. Once out of the interview room, staff stopped to apply handcuffs, then dragged Abdul to a seclusion room. In the seclusion room, staff held him face down on the 4-point restraint bed while he was still in handcuffs. They pulled down Abdul’s pants and he screamed as a nurse administered multiple intramuscular njections into his buttocks. Staff then stood Abdul up, his pants still around his ankles, and pressed him against the wall as they removed the handcuffs. Staff put Abdul back on the restraint bed and secured 4-point restraints around his limbs, where he remained for over an hour. Throughout the altercation, Abdul often screamed and cried. Abdul sustained multiple cuts to his back from being dragged and showed cuts and abrasions on his hands and arms.
Wellpath, the company that manages Bridgewater, asserts that its programs can help reduce recidivism among sex offenders. Bridgewater provides classes, therapy, support meetings, and peer assistance to help offenders identify risks, triggers, and other factors contributing to their behavior. Studies indicate that recidivism can decrease by 5-8% over a five-year period.
However, recidivism is influenced by additional factors, such as the offender’s age and the specifics of the offense.
But the state mainly focuses on other mechanisms to reduce recidivism, such as public shaming via the SORB registry, and lengthy stays in prison, which is probably the most effective way to ensure offenders don’t reoffend.