The following constitutes the Annual Report of the Office of Community Corrections as required by
statute.
Chapter 211F Mandated Reporting Items
The report shall include but shall not be limited to the following information:
(1) the effectiveness of the office of community corrections in promoting the goals of the commission;
(2) the effectiveness of the office of community corrections in diverting offenders by reducing prison
commitments; (3) the evaluation and recommendations submitted by the county community
corrections advisory boards and by providers of community corrections programs; (4) fiscal audits on
expenditures of state funds; (5) allegations of provider noncompliance and the results of any
investigations into such allegations, ALM GL c 211F §5 (2011).
(1) The mission of the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission (MSC) is “to recommend
sentencing policies and practices to develop systematic sentencing guidelines for every
criminal offense and to integrate intermediate sanctions.” (Advisory Guidelines of the
Massachusetts Sentencing Commission, 2017.) The Office of Community Corrections (OCC)
promotes the goals of the MSC through the development and implementation of
intermediate sanctions. Intermediate sanctions are criminal justice interventions that are
more intensive than traditional probation or parole but do not include confinement. The
OCC develops programming that is implemented as intermediate sanctions by courts,
probation, parole, sheriff’s departments and the Department of Correction. The OCC
delivers intermediate sanctions through a statewide network of Community Justice Support
Centers (formerly known as Community Corrections Centers) and the Community Service
Program (CSP).
In its original 1996 recommendations, the MSC developed intermediate sanction levels as a
component of its proposed sentencing guidelines. Consistent with its statutory charge, the
OCC adopted the intermediate sanction levels as the means by which the court could order a
combination of services and sanctions as a community-based intermediate sanction that
would be delivered at Community Justice Support Centers (CJSC or Support Centers) across
the state. Support Centers were designed to execute sentences to Intermediate Sanction
Level III (daily accountability) and IV (24-hour restriction).
In November 2017, the MSC published new advisory guidelines that eliminated reference to
intermediate sanction levels I-IV. The MSC stated, “…this multilevel hierarchy of probation
supervision has not gained wide usage among judges and attorneys. Further, probation
supervision level is probably best set by use of a validated risk assessment…” As a result,
the Office of Community Corrections worked with the Executive Office of the Trial Court to
develop a new instrument by which the court effects a sentence to the CJSC. Under this new
Community Corrections Order (CCO) Intermediate Sanction Levels III and IV have been
rebranded as Intensive Supervision with Treatment (IST). When the court orders a person
to IST, the Support Centers determine the appropriate level of intervention to be taken with
the probationer based on the results of a comprehensive risk/needs assessment.
In FY24, there were 18 operational Support Centers which delivered IST and other
statutory bases or “pathways” including services for those in the pretrial phase of a case and
those returning to the community after a period of incarceration. The OCC also operated the
Community Service Program which administered court ordered community service as an
Page 1
 intermediate sanction or to address criminogenic need associated with a lack of prosocial
leisure and recreation.
(2) In FY24, there were 2,171 new admissions to the Support Centers. Among those referred:
1,082 were sentenced by the court, 59 were referred to the Support Centers via prerelease
classification by a Sheriff’s Department, 91 were referred by Parole as a graduated sanction
or condition of the Parole Board, and 939 were previously incarcerated and attended
voluntarily known as re-entry.
In FY24, there were 53,169 contacts with the Support Centers by probationers and parolees
for ancillary supervision supports such as evening check-in with the probation/parole
officer, participation in Motherhood, Fatherhood, Intimate Partner Abuse Education, or
another program. 2,391 referrals were made to the OCC’s Community Service Program to
satisfy a community service obligation imposed by the court, to address a criminogenic
need associated with antisocial leisure or recreation.
(3) In partnership with UMass Chan Medical School, the OCC developed a Community Advisory
Board (CAB) to amplify voices of people with lived experience. The OCC selected 8 inaugural
members in FY24, and the CAB is set to commence in FY25.
Support Centers additionally hold quarterly meetings, which serve as a community advisory
forum for Community Justice Support Center operations. Meetings focus on specific local
issues at Support Centers such as the efficiency of the referral process, transportation, and
the development of linkages with community agencies such as community colleges,
hospitals, residential treatment centers, and health centers. Importantly, meeting members
considered measures to enhance services for those returning from incarceration through
the Re-entry Services Programs pathway in FY24. These considerations included outreach
to stakeholders, including judges, prosecution, and defense counsel regarding pretrial
pathways. Meetings were attended by representatives of local probation and parole,
sheriff’s departments, bar advocates, and judges. Quarterly meetings were held at all
Support Centers in FY24, and no formalized evaluation or recommendations were made.
(4) CJSC providers are required to invoice the OCC monthly and provide documentary support
for all funds expended pursuant to contracts for Program/Treatment Management,
Program Monitoring, and/or Drug and Alcohol Screening. OCC personnel assigned to fiscal
affairs and contract management review invoices and documentary support pursuant to
standards and subsequent review of the Office of Court Management. For Support Centers
that are operated via Interdepartmental Service Agreement with Sheriff’s Departments, the
OCC requires the submission of all contracts executed by the Sheriff’s Department in
performance of the ISA to the OCC. In FY24, there were no unresolved fiscal audits.
(5) In FY24, OCC staff, including Regional Program Managers, conducted regular weekly
supervision of provider operations of Support Centers. Regional Program Managers
engaged providers to ensure compliance with statutory and contractual requirements but
there were no formalized allegations of provider noncompliance forwarded for hearing by
the Executive Director.
Please see the attached “Office of Community Corrections Utilization and Statistical Report, Fiscal
Year 2024” for more information about the Office of Community Corrections.
Page 2