Over-criminalizing Our Youth: How MA’s Own “Crime Bill” Harms the Most Vulnerable Among Us

Prison

By Zoraida Fernandez

Over the past few years, there has been an important and growing societal reckoning with the damage done by the 1994 federal crime bill and the racist legacy of mass incarceration.

However, as a new report from Citizens for Juvenile Justice reminds us, the federal crime bill did not exist in isolation: it inspired a wave of misguided “tough-on-crime” bills in the states, including Massachusetts’s Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA” — Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 269 § 10G), with lasting harm on Massachusetts communities of color, particularly youth of color.

ACCA imposes harsher penalties on people convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm who previously had been convicted of at least one “violent crime” or “serious drug offense.” As this report demonstrates, however, ACCA has imposed unwarranted and draconian punishments on people, especially some of the most vulnerable in our community, including young people of color. And its effects have had devastating and long-lasting consequences not just for those incarcerated, but the communities who bear the burden of losing families to incarceration for extended periods.

How ACCA works to punish people more severely and curtail their rights

When the government convicts a person of unlawfully possessing a weapon, the conviction may trigger consideration of harsher punishment if the person has prior convictions for certain crimes (“predicate offenses”). When there is even one such prior conviction, including ones from someone’s youth (“juvenile adjudication”), ACCA imposes harsher punishments that must be served in state prison. One such prior conviction would trigger a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years, two such prior conventions would trigger a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, and three such prior convictions would trigger a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years.

Strikingly, the report’s authors found that nearly half of all defendants charged under ACCA were charged under its most punitive provision, mandating a minimum of 15 years of incarceration.

  • ACCA imposes harsh punishment regardless of an individual’s circumstances

In non-ACCA criminal cases, judges consider not just the circumstances of the offense and the person’s criminal history, but also the person as an individual, when imposing a sentence. The defendant is entitled to present contextual information to explain why they committed the offense, information related to the impact of incarceration on their family or community, or any other information that would assist a judge in imposing a fair sentence. ACCA eliminates all contextual information. It also eliminates all opportunities for the criminal legal system to address the root causes of an individual’s repeat offending; it requires judges to simply impose at least the minimum term of years prescribed, no questions asked.  

  • Offenses committed by children can count as ACCA predicate offenses

Alarmingly, even juvenile adjudications—offenses that a person committed as a child—can count as predicate offenses for ACCA. There is a wealth of research indicating the immaturity of children’s developing brains and how this can affect decision-making. Given all this evidence, continuing to consider these offenses to justify enhanced punishments is deeply unjust. 

  • Prosecutors threaten defendants with ACCA enhancements to secure guilty pleas

Federal and state prosecutors routinely use the threat of charging defendants under ACCA as a cudgel to secure quick guilty pleas. When criminal defendants are faced with an enhanced 15-year sentence, the best of bad options for them may be to plead guilty to the charged offense—whether they committed the crime or not—rather than go to trial and risk spending decades in prison. Likewise, the report notes that criminal defense attorneys have had to forego filing motions to dismiss on behalf of their clients because prosecutors threaten ACCA enhancements. Neither the Legislature nor District Attorneys, whose mission is supposed to be the pursuit of justice, should stand for this systemic denial of people’s constitutional rights to their defense and to trial.

How ACCA disproportionately harms residents of color

The report notes that Black and Latine defendants make up over 75% of Massachusetts ACCA cases, despite making up less than 20% of the population. Moreover, ACCA cases are overwhelmingly charged in urban areas, with the Boston Police and State Police alone charging nearly half of ACCA cases during the time period analyzed, with the overwhelming majority of cases involving Black and Latine individuals.

More specifically, ACCA’s predicate drug offenses mean that people of color are disproportionately affected because, as noted in the report, laws criminalizing possession and distribution of drugs disproportionately target people of color. Police and prosecutors are more likely to charge residents of color with serious drug offenses because of overpolicing in their neighborhoods and prosecutorial discretion, respectively. ACCA exacerbates these inequities by using these charges to justify overly harsh punishments.

Similarly, stop-and-frisk policies and so-called hot-spot policing practices have meant that police disproportionately charge residents of color with gun possession charges that trigger ACCA.

And this disproportionality in charging residents of color with gun crimes as compared to white residents is even wider than that involving drug crimes.

Finally, the report notes that documented discrepancies also exist in charging decisions between white defendants and Black and Latine defendants. Prosecutors tend to charge Black and Latine individuals with more severe crimes than their white counterparts for the same or similar conduct, which leads to harsher punishment, including possible ACCA enhancements. The answer, however, is not to increase punishments for white individuals, but rather to decrease unwarranted and severe punishments for all criminal defendants.

Recommendations for action

Given the documented harm caused by ACCA punishment enhancements, the report details several recommendations for action. A few that stand out are:

  • The Legislature should eliminate ACCA. At the very least, it should start by modifying ACCA to enhance punishment only for individuals with three predicate offenses and removing drug offenses and charges of simple weapon possession as qualifying offenses.
  • The Legislature should prevent juvenile adjudications from counting as ACCA predicates.
  • Prosecutors should stop widespread use of ACCA charges and instate policies for its use only under limited circumstances.

The Legislature and District Attorneys’ offices should act expeditiously to ameliorate the harm that ACCA punishments have caused to entire communities.

PM Joins Coalition of 100+ Groups Calling on Legislature to Fund Emergency Assistance Family Shelter

Progressive Mass signed onto the following letter organized by the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless and the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute. You can see the full list of signers here.

October 30, 2023

The Honorable Senate President Karen Spilka
Office of the Senate President  
State House, Room 332
Boston, MA 02133

The Honorable Speaker Ronald Mariano
Office of the Speaker of the House
State House, Room 356
Boston, MA 02133

Re: Please Fund Emergency Assistance Family Shelter; Don’t Leave Kids Out in the Cold

Dear Senate President Spilka, Speaker Mariano, and members of the Legislature:

Thank you for your longstanding strong support of children and families in the Commonwealth. We are grateful for your commitment to meeting residents’ basic needs, and especially the needs of the most vulnerable members of our communities.

We write to ask you to urgently provide enough supplemental funding for the Emergency Assistance (EA) family shelter program to enable it to continue to serve all eligible families who are experiencing homelessness at least through January. This would give state leaders time to carefully consider policy solutions to the surge in demand for family shelter. It would also be consistent with the 90-days advance notice that the line item, 7004-0101, requires before eligibility changes are made. Such notice has not yet been provided by the Administration to the Legislature.  

There is no greater basic need than shelter from the elements, which is why we are so proud to live in a state that guarantees a right to shelter to eligible children in need. We are keenly aware that the EA system is under great strain at the moment, and you and the Administration are working to develop solutions. In the meantime, however, we are deeply, deeply troubled by the notion that the state may shut shelter doors to new applicants and place eligible families on a waiting list starting this week, on November 1st.

We have seen what happens when families cannot access shelter. Toddlers huddle with their parents on the street. Children are forced to sleep in cars in the bitter cold. Parents and guardians attempt to protect themselves and their small loved ones from inclement weather and physical danger in places not meant for human habitation.  

Please appropriate the necessary funds to sustain our shelter system through January, at a minimum, as an interim measure while working to develop a more comprehensive, family-focused response that could be enacted when the Legislature returns from its winter recess.

Sincerely,

What’s in the Governor’s Bond Bill? And What’s Next?

On October 18, the Healey Administration released their proposed housing bond bill, named the Affordable Homes Act. 

The bill includes $4 billion in capital spending authorizations, 28 policy changes or initiatives, three executive orders and two targeted tax credits focused on addressing the state’s worsening affordable housing crisis.

The $4 billion in capital spending authorizations includes $1.6 billion for public housing ($150 million of which would go toward decarbonization efforts). You can read an overview of the spending authorizations here, but below we want to focus on a few of the policy proposals that align with legislation we have been supporting. 

But first: what is a bond bill? A bond bill is legislation that authorizes the state to issue and sell bonds to fund capital projects and programs. The bond bill contains capital authorizations, which identify programs that can be funded through revenue raised through said bonds. Importantly, a bond bill only authorizes the spending; continued advocacy is necessary for the spending to become a reality afterwards. 

But back to the policy overview…

GOOD 

Creation of a five-year housing plan

The bill would require the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities to prepare a statewide housing plan every 5 years, conducting regional outreach following robust data analysis. Having more intentionality around our housing needs is certainly important. 

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) As-Of-Right

Many cities and towns across the state have been fighting to pass zoning reforms to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) — small, independent residences built on the same lot as a single-family home — as a way to increase affordable housing stock. The bill would permit ADUs of <900 SF to be built by-right in single-family zoning districts in all communities–in other words, eliminating the need for special zoning ordinances by the city or town to permit them. 

The bill would prohibit owner occupancy requirements, which have worked against efforts to desegregate communities. Affordable rental stock is key to having a racially and economically diverse community. 

The bill also prohibits parking mandates to ADUs within ½ mile of transit, making them more affordable to build as parking spaces cost money and thus make housing less affordable. 

Inclusionary Zoning by Simple Majority

When Massachusetts recently updated the state’s zoning laws to allow cities and towns to approve certain new zoning ordinances by simple majority, this suite of reforms notably did not include inclusionary zoning ordinances, which would require developers to build a certain percentage of affordable units as a part of new construction. 

This bill would correct that omission and add inclusionary zoning ordinances and bylaws to the list of zoning changes municipalities can pass by a simple majority in the relevant legislative body (e.g., city council, town meeting).

Surplus Public Land Disposition Reforms

We need to build more housing and more affordable housing, and that requires land to build it on. The bill would help streamline the disposition of land under the control of a state agency or quasi for housing purposes. When the state owns the land, it can also lower the costs of building housing, making it easier to build affordable units. 

Establishing the Office of Fair Housing

The bill establishes an office within the  Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities with explicit focus on fair housing and establishes a trust fund for enforcement initiatives, fair housing testing, education, and outreach. Strong fair housing laws and enforcement ensure that people are not discriminated against in buying or renting a home for reasons of race, color, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, etc. 

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

Local Option Transfer Fee

Cities and towns across the state facing a dire lack of affordable housing have turned toward transfer fees as an option: by imposing a modest fee on high-end real estate transactions, cities and towns can raise money for their affordable housing trusts. Seventeen cities and towns have home rule petitions to do this before the State House, a sign of both the breadth of support as well as the limitations municipalities face in addressing the crisis on their own. 

The bill would allow municipalities and regional affordable housing commissions to adopt a transfer fee of 0.5% – 2.0%, paid by the seller, on the portion of sale proceeds over $1M or the county median home sales price, whichever is greater, with the revenue used for affordable housing development.

This proposal is great for Boston, whose transfer fee HRP would apply to property sales over $2 million (on their value over $2 million), but it would limit some of the other HRPs. 

For instance, Amherst is interested in a transfer fee, but the median home sale price in Hampshire County is only $427,500. Pushing the threshold up to $1 million would severely limit how much they could raise. 

And on Martha’s Vineyard, where all of the towns have been actively lobbying for their Home Rule Petitions given a dire housing crisis, this would push up their threshold to over $1.3 million, again limiting how much they could raise. 

Eviction Sealing

Having an eviction record is creating a devastating barrier for tenants looking for housing. Records are created as soon as a case is filed and are publicly available forever–– regardless of the outcome. These records impact people’s ability to obtain housing, credit, and employment, harming many and disproportionately impacting women and people of color. Regardless of whether one does anything wrong or is actually evicted, being party to an eviction or housing case is being unfairly held against tenants when they try to rent a new place.

There’s a clear solution to this problem: sealing eviction records, either immediately in cases of no-fault or for a defined period of time for other cases. 

The bill would provide a process for tenants to petition the court to seal an eviction record for (i) no-fault evictions: after conclusion of the case; (ii) solely non-payment evictions: no other eviction action within past 3 years and judgment for underlying eviction has been satisfied; and (iii) all other fault evictions: 7 years from conclusion of the matter and 3 years without any other eviction case filed against the tenant. It would also prohibit consumer reporting agencies from disclosing information in a sealed eviction record.

Although this is a step forward, we should not burden tenants with unnecessary bureaucratic steps to seal eviction records. Rather than enabling them to petition a court, the court should automatically seal records at the given benchmarks, as was the case in a prior iteration of the HOMES Act. 

What’s Next?

The bill will have a hearing with the Joint Housing Committee and possibly other committees, and given the history of past bond bills, it may not be finalized until the end of the session. But what that means is that your state legislators need to be hearing from you.

Why the UAW Strike Matters

UAW strike

By Enid Eckstein, JP Progressives

On September 14, United Automobile Workers took to the picket lines to begin their “Stand Up Strike.” The first week, workers struck a number of strategic profitable plants at the “Big 3” automakers: Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis. Over the next few weeks, the strike expanded to parts suppliers and other assembly plants. The idea is to increase pressure gradually and keep the companies guessing what is next. On September 21, Massachusetts Stellantis workers at the Mansfield facility joined the strike. Over 30,000 workers are now on the picket lines in 22 states. President Biden made history when he joined the UAW line in suburban Detroit, demonstrating his support to the striking workers.

It is not just our strike, it is a strike for social justice”, Shawn Fain, UAW President

During the 2007-2008 recession, the automakers were in trouble and facing bankruptcy. The Obama administration and the automakers pushed for major concessions. The UAW leadership agreed, and workers were forced to weaken pensions and retiree health benefits, give up cost of living adjustments, cut overtime pay, and agree to a multi-tier pay structure and temporary workers. Those hired after 2007 would be paid significantly less, and not receive the same pensions. As the employers hired more workers and began recovery, there were workers working side by side with radically different pay rates for performing the same work. One worker would receive $ 32/hour and another $19 for the same job. It would take a worker 8 years to reach the top of the scale, and many never make it since they are considered temporary workers, making even less an hour.  

In March 2023, UAW members voted in a historic direct election for the officers of their union, following a long fight for a more democratic union. A new leadership, led by Shawn Fain, took charge and immediately began to educate, organize, and mobilize workers in a contract campaign. Key demands for this contract campaign include the end of the temporary workers classification and the end of the multi-tier system. The workers want everything they gave up to be restored and to receive a significant pay increase to make up for the years of concessions. Union members sacrificed and lost income for the last 16 years while the companies made billions.

This is also a strike about the future of the auto industry and its transition to electric vehicles. The union is demanding job security—the right to strike over plant closings and for Electric Vehicle workers to be bought under the union’s three master agreements. As UAW President Shawn Fain says, this is about a “just transition”: ensuring that the transition to a green economy is one that lifts up workers, not leaves them behind. The union has also fought for a reduced work week. It was during the 1930s that the UAW won the five-day work week. Yes, the folks “that brought you the weekend” are once again fighting for a shorter work week.

A recent Gallup poll found that 75% of the public supports the UAW strike. Just as the Writers Guild and AFTRA/SAG strike were about more than wages, this strike is a strike against corporate greed and high CEO pay, and it is an effort to restore the American dream for auto workers. This is a fight for the future of American manufacturing workers.

The companies and CEOs raked in billions while the workers lost out

All three companies have been extremely profitable. In the first 6 months of this year, they took in $21 billion. Estimates are they made $32 billion in profits due to the concessions, yet workers lost 19% of their wages during the same period. Car prices rose by 35% over the last four years, so the companies are doing well as are the CEOs. Mary Barra, CEO of General Motors, was paid $28.9 million last year. The CEOs of Stellantis and Ford each $24.8 Million and $21.0 million respectively. According to UAW President Shawn Fain, “a worker would have to work 400 years to equal a year of CEO pay.”

What you can do!

The Mansfield Stellantis Facility (550 Forbes Road) is a small facility, and the 60-some workers need your help and support. They maintain a 24-hour active picket line. So far, many unions have joined the picket line, providing needed bodies and moral support. Senators Warren and Markey have also joined the line. Special shout-out to State Senator Paul Feeney who has walked the line many nights and is working to build other support.

The picket line is lively since the company is moving supplies and trucks in and out.

Organize a group of friends or members of your chapter to take a trip to Mansfield. Talk to the workers on the picket line. They are very friendly and appreciative of support. Make a sign telling them who you are and why you are there. Bring coffee and other refreshments.

A recent Labor Notes story also encourages people to call the Big 3 CEOs at 318-300-1249 and leave a message telling the CEO’s to settle. Let people know you support the members of the UAW in their fight against corporate greed.

What Just Happened with the Tax Bill

Last year, voters showed up in November and sent a clear message by passing the Fair Share Amendment: we need greater investment in public education and transportation in the Commonwealth, and the wealthy should pay their fair share. 

Because of the new revenue raised by the Fair Share Amendment, more kids will have access to pre-K, students will have access to free school meals, our schools will be greener, and fewer graduates of our public colleges and universities will be burdened with debt. Even more, we will see better hours for our Regional Transit Authorities, better upkeep for roads and bridges, and much-needed additional funding for the MBTA. All of this just in the first year of new revenue. 

And that is why it is so disappointing to see the Governor and Legislature focus so much energy this year on cutting taxes, particularly for the ultra-rich and large corporations. Almost 40% of the tax package —  passed nearly unanimously by the Legislature and supported by the Governor — consisted of regressive tax giveaways, disproportionately benefiting the Commonwealth’s richest residents, corporations, and estates. Multi-million-dollar estates will be getting a tax break of almost $100,000 each. Day traders, speculators, and multinational corporations also come out well ahead. 

More progressive components of the bill, such as the child tax credit ($200 per child) and renters deduction (a paltry $50), can help families struggling to make ends meet but miss the mark when it comes to actually addressing the problems of affordability in Massachusetts. We need to be investing in our child care infrastructure and in preserving and expanding affordable housing, and the regressive tax cuts in the bill siphon away vital funding for doing so. That said, the fact that the Legislature closed a loophole that could have enabled tax avoidance of the Fair Share tax is both welcome and necessary. 

It is simply not acceptable for legislators to say “We don’t have the money” when it comes to meeting basic needs, when they are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on unnecessary and regressive tax cuts for the rich and large corporations. 

Our commonwealth has the resources we need to solve the great challenges we face; the question is whether our elected officials have the will to do so. 

Elizabeth Warren is Keeping Up the Fight: Notes from Her Town Hall in Needham

by Jan Soma, Progressive Needham

Senator Elizabeth Warren and Jan Soma of Progressive Needham.
Senator Elizabeth Warren and Jan Soma of Progressive Needham.

There was a crowd that overflowed the large hall, and the energy resonated. Murmurs, clapping, shouts — it was clear that the audience was excited to be there.

Where were they? The applause was coming from people who, like me, attended Elizabeth Warren’s Town Hall in Needham on August 30th and were excited about the work that our senator has been doing in Washington.

The central takeaway from the town hall? Warren is determined to help save our democracy. She believes we need 4 more justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. To get there, she is supporting key Democrats who are facing opposition for the next election and told the crowd that they needed to help keep the Senate and flip the House in 2024. 

I asked a question about federal support for child care. Federal funding for the stabilization of child care is due to mostly run out on Sept. 30th of this year. I wanted to know if she thought that a new bill called the Child Care Stabilization Act might pass to keep as many as 70,000 child care programs across the country from shutting down. The short answer: she doesn’t think the Republicans will join Democrats to keep these programs operating. Millions of children are probably going to be without needed care this fall as a result. She vowed to keep pushing for a federal program that supports families. I mentioned the Massachusetts Common Start initiatives that promise to bridge the child care funding gap in our state as the federal funds dry up. Of course she is a fan!

When asked about her view of term limits, Senator Warren said she was not a supporter. She believes power is developed over time and good leaders would be forced to leave before they had time to accomplish the goals their constituents valued. She also stated that our elected officials in Washington need more money for staffing. While laughing, she recounted a time when another legislator mentioned to her that cryptocurrency sounded wonderful. This legislator was visited by convincing crypto lobbyists but didn’t have enough staff to research it within their own office. She said she needs more staff funding to expand her work in the Senate.

Some short takes: 

  • She supports Security and Exchange Commissioner Gary Gensler’s goal of having new private equity disclosure rules. She said that as many as 1 in 2 homes have been purchased with cash recently by private equity groups who held them back until the market was high and then unloaded them. This drives the housing market up and out of reach for many. She wants the Federal Government to contribute more money to bring home prices lower and increase supply.
  • Senator Warren wants to ‘take on some of the structures which would be unpopular politically’ to create a more equitable healthcare system. For now, she is focused on decreasing the cost of drugs and managing private Medicare Advantage vendors who are ‘up-diagnosing’ to receive many millions of dollars of unfair higher payments from the Medicare program. 
  • When a concern over credit card practices was raised, Senator Warren encouraged anyone with a problem to register a complaint with the Federal Consumer Protection Agency. She said it is easy to register a complaint and that it is useful to the agency because they learn where problems are when they see clusters of complaints.

Would you like to get involved with Progressive Needham? You can email them here!

🔎New Feature on Our Scorecard Website

Do you know what your legislators are up to?

Our Legislator Scorecard website (https://scorecard.progressivemass.com/) helps you do so, and we’re happy to announce a new feature. We aren’t yet far enough into the session to update votes for this legislative session (Stay tuned!). However, now, in addition to looking up your legislator and the bills that they are co-sponsoring, you can look up co-sponsors by bill on the Sponsored Bills page.

This helps give you a big-picture view of which state senators and state reps are already on board with a bill and who needs some friendly, and organized, pressure.

PM Scorecard website with "Sponsored Bills" circled in green

Even if you actively follow the news (what little coverage of state politics there is), or check the State Legislature’s labyrinthine website, it can still be difficult to know how your legislators voted and what bills they are championing.

That’s why our Legislator Scorecard website is such a vital tool. It allows you to see how your legislators are voting on the progressive issues you care about, and it allows you to see if they are co-sponsoring key bills. Such data points help break down the information barriers that residents face to becoming effective everyday lobbyists.

So check out the new feature — as well as the old ones. And if you have any questions (An error? A bill you’d like to see us include? Something else entirely? Want to help?), let us know.

One more ask….We’ve been diligently keeping track of votes since 2011. And doing that takes work. It take staff time, volunteer time, and tech platforms that cost money.

So if you value that work, and I hope you do, please consider making a donation to keep it going.

PM Joins 89 Other Organizations from Across the State in Calling for a Prison Moratorium

Link to the letter here

To the Esteemed Members of the Legislature,

In the 192nd session, the legislature listened to community demands and passed the Jail and Prison Construction Moratorium which was then vetoed by former Governor Charlie Baker. Thank you for passing this critical legislation. We, the undersigned organizations, urge you to pass the Prison Moratorium as filed as soon as possible again this session. This bill will create a five year pause on prison and jail construction and expansion; it will not prevent urgently needed repairs.

Incarcerated women, formerly incarcerated women, women with incarcerated loved ones, and our organizations oppose the state’s plan to build a new $50 million women’s prison. This project goes beyond basic repairs; the clear goal is total reconstruction to incarcerate the daughters, granddaughters, and great-granddaughters of the Commonwealth.

There is no such thing as a safe or trauma-informed prison for women. DOC has an extensive and well documented record of violence, abuse, and refusal to implement reforms. No new building will change that culture of harm and dehumanization. DOC fails to give people what they need to heal and advance their lives.

Our organizations advocate for civil and human rights, dignity, equity, and justice. Our collective vision for capital spending includes affordable housing, schools, transportation, drug treatment facilities, community centers, parks, playgrounds, and greenspace. We know what residents need is more access to resources like food, housing, care, income, education, and childcare – not more prison cells.

Incarcerated women are asking for physical and mental healthcare, healing, treatment, and reunification with their children which cannot happen in a prison setting. Community infrastructure and resources are the solutions to create real safety and well-being and address the root causes of incarceration.

Investment in jail and prison construction and expansion will move Massachusetts in the wrong direction. We can and must do better for future generations. Over the next five years, we should focus on further decreasing our incarcerated population, implementing community alternatives, and investing in what we know people need to thrive. Directly affected women are already leading that work. With the lowest incarcerated population in the country – this is the time and place to pass the Prison Moratorium.

The legislature is currently considering policies that will help eliminate the need for any new jail or prison construction. We urge you to enact the Jail and Prison Construction Moratorium, then keep going to pass policies to stem the tide of people into incarceration and to maximize pathways to release. Please support:

An Act Relative to Primary Caretakers Diversion - creates an opportunity for pre-trial diversion for parents of dependent children, pregnant people, and people taking care of aging or sick family members. This policy would build off the successful passage of the Primary Caretakers Act as part of the Criminal Justice Reform Act which allows parents to file a motion with the court to request a community-based sentence
An Act Establishing Parole Review for Aging Incarcerated People - gives people who are 55 and older and have served half of their sentence or at least 15 years the chance to see the Parole Board. MA has one of the oldest incarcerated populations in the United States and this measure would create the opportunity for the oldest and sickest incarcerated people to be safely released

Formerly incarcerated women led a historic organizing effort last session to pass the Prison Moratorium with the resounding support of residents who repeatedly marched, rallied, and testified in favor of the legislation. Jail and prison construction is a false promise that will ultimately fail to protect the well-being of people and communities – so let’s pause and create what different looks like in Massachusetts. Please finish the important work you started last session and ensure the Prison Moratorium becomes law.

Sincerely,

Families for Justice as Healing
The National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls
Building Up People Not Prisons

And

Progressive Massachusetts, statewide
Prisoners' Legal Services of Massachusetts, statewide
Project Turnaround, Suffolk County
New Beginnings Reentry Services, Inc, Suffolk County
Jane Doe Inc. The Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence, statewide
Boston Immigration Justice Accompaniment Network, BIJAN, statewide
First Parish in Brookline, Suffolk County

UU Mass Action, statewide
The Harvest Cup, Worcester
National Lawyers Guild – Harvard Law School Chapter, Suffolk and Middlesex County
Mass NOW, statewide
Solidarity with the Incarcerated, RI/MA, Middlesex
Arise For Social Justice, Hampden
United American Indians of New England (UAINE), statewide
Jewish Voice for Peace Boston, statewide
Actual Justice Task Team of Southern New England United Church of Christ, statewide
Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) Boston, Suffolk and Middlesex County
Material Aid and Advocacy Program, Middlesex
Cambridge United for Justice with Peace, Middlesex
Boston Immigration Justice and Accompaniment Network, Eastern Massachusetts
Allston Brighton Health Collaborative, Suffolk
Massachusetts Bail Fund, statewide
Brandeis Pro-Choice, Waltham
American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, statewide
T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, Massachusetts, statewide
Disability Law Center, statewide
Franklin County Continuing the Political Revolution, Franklin
North Central MA Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ), Middlesex and Worcester County
Act on Mass, statewide
New England United 4 Justice (NEU4J), Suffolk County
Sharon Interfaith Action, Norfolk County
First Parish in Bedford, Middlesex County
Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee, statewide
Boston University's National Lawyers Guild, Suffolk County
Jamaica Plain Progressives, Suffolk County 
Massachusetts Peace Action, statewide
Women’s Fund of Western MA, Berkshires, Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire County
Kavod Boston, Suffolk County
The Lavender Thread, Hampden
Illinois Alliance for Reentry and Justice, national
Boston Liberation Health, Suffolk County
Wellesley for the Abolition of Militarism and Incarceration, Suffolk County
Human Impact Partners (HIP), national
Center for Economic Democracy, statewide
Health Equity Partnership of North Central Mass Inc, Worcester County
Boston Workers Circle: Center for Jewish Culture and Social Justice, Norfolk County
Mass Feminist Struggle Committee, Suffolk County
Boston Democratic Socialists of America, Statewide
Students for Sexual Health, Suffolk County
Wellesley Friends Meeting, Norfolk County
Grassroots Central Mass, Worcester and Hampden
REACH Beyond Domestic Violence, Middlesex County
DOVE, Inc., Norfolk County
Immigration Justice Task Force @ First Parish UU Concord, Statewide
Resource Generation Boston, Middlesex and Suffolk County
Congregation Dorshei Tzedek, Middlesex County
Our Harvard Can Do Better, Cambridge
New England Learning Center for Women in Transition, Franklin County & the North Quabbin
Somerville Ward 5 Democratic Committee, Middlesex County
Prison Abolition Collective, Hampshire County
MASC (Massachusetts Against Solitary Confinement), Statewide
Wellesley for Reproductive Justice, Norfolk County
Decarcerate Western Mass Bailout Project, Hampshire and Franklin County
National Association of Social Workers - MA Chapter (NASW-MA), Statewide
Lupinewood Collective, Franklin County
Greater Boston Legal Services, Suffolk County
The F8 Foundation, Statewide
Criminal Justice Policy Coalition, Suffolk County
Transition House, Inc., Middlesex County
Casa Myrna Vazquez, Inc., Suffolk County
New Hope, Inc., Bristol County and Worcester County
Actual Justice Task Team of Southern New England United Church of Christ, Statewide
Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee, Statewide
Muslim Justice League, Suffolk County
Temple Hillel B’nai Torah, West Roxbury, Suffolk County
YWCA Cambridge, Statewide
Jewish Activists for Immigration Justice of Western Massachusetts, Hampshire and Franklin County
Neighbors United for a Better East Boston (NUBE), East Boston and Statewide
Taunton Diversity Network, Inc., Bristol County
Northeastern University Sexual Health Advocacy, Resources, and Education (NU SHARE), Suffolk County
The Village Worcester, Worcester County
United Women in Faith, Community United Methodist Church, Wayland, Middlesex County
Boston Ward 19 Democratic Committee, Suffolk County
Temple Hillel B’nai Torah, Suffolk County
Inside the Sun, Suffolk County
Justice 4 Housing, Statewide
Youth Justice and Power Union, Suffolk County
Partakers Empowerment Program (Brandeis Educational Justice Initiative), Statewide

PM Joins 80 Other Organizations in Calling for Tuition Equity

June 9, 2023

To: Sen. Michael J. Rodrigues, Chair, Senate Committee on Ways and Means

Rep. Aaron M. Michlewitz, Chair, House Committee on Ways and Means

Sen. Cindy F. Friedman, Vice-Chair, Senate Committee on Ways and Means

Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante, Vice-Chair, House Committee on Ways and Means

Sen. Patrick O’Connor, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on Ways and Means

Rep. Todd M. Smola, Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Ways and Means

CC: The Honorable Senate President Karen E. Spilka

The Honorable Speaker of the House Ronald Mariano

FR: The Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy (MIRA) Coalition, the Massachusetts Tuition Equity Coalition (MTEC) and the Undersigned MIRA Coalition Members, Allies, and Partner Organizations

RE: Access to In-State Tuition Rates at Public Colleges and Universities for Immigrant Graduates of Massachusetts High Schools, Regardless of Immigration Status

We, the 81 undersigned immigrant-serving organizations and allies, are grateful to the leadership of the House and Senate for your generous support for legislation and programs providing critical services and assistance for the Commonwealth’s immigrant and refugee communities in recent years. We are especially grateful for legislative advances that address the needs of the most vulnerable members of our Commonwealth’s diverse immigrant communities, such as last year’s historic passage of the Work and Family Mobility Act.

As you finalize the FY24 budget this year, we respectfully request that the conference committee extend in-state tuition and state-funded education assistance to eligible Massachusetts high school graduates, regardless of their immigration status, as provided in outside section 8 of the Senate budget.

Immigrant advocates and higher education leaders in Massachusetts have long supported broad access to an affordable public college education for immigrant youth, particularly those without status who arrived in the U.S. as children and have been educated in our public schools. Currently these students are required to pay out-of-state or international tuition rates (up to four times the in-state rate). They are overwhelmingly from low-income, hardworking families, often with substantial responsibilities to contribute to family income, but lack access to both federal and state student financial aid. This combination effectively denies some of our most ambitious and talented high school graduates from continuing their education and contributing to the Massachusetts economy.

We support the inclusion of the in-state tuition provision for the following reasons:

Our Commonwealth should continue investing in these students. There are an estimated 15,000 undocumented students currently enrolled in Massachusetts primary schools. Massachusetts should make good on this investment by allowing these students to fulfill their educational potential.

Expanded access to public higher education is an investment in the future Massachusetts workforce. In Massachusetts, immigrants are 80 percent more likely than US-born residents to start their own businesses, ranging from family-owned small businesses to tech startups. Nearly one in four entrepreneurs in Massachusetts is foreign-born.

Our public colleges and universities would benefit from broadening educational access to include these students, given declining Massachusetts enrollment rates. Foreign-born students account for a substantial portion of the public college and university student body. Nationally, 83% of immigrant college students were enrolled in public institutions (as opposed to private ones) in 2018. Meanwhile, college enrollment in Massachusetts has declined by over 10% since 2015.

We believe that Massachusetts has a historic opportunity to join the over 23 states that have expanded public higher educational opportunities to undocumented high school graduates, and continue this legislature’s legacy of support for our immigrant communities. The proposed policy would benefit our public higher education institutions, our labor force, and most importantly, the Massachusetts high school graduates who are educated, work, and pay taxes here in our Commonwealth.

Respectfully,

Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition

Massachusetts Tuition Equity Coalition

32BJ SEIU

ACLU of Massachusetts

Action for Boston Community Development, Inc. (ABCD)

ADL New England

African Bridge Network

Agencia ALPHA

American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts

Amplify Latinx

Asian American Resource Workshop (AARW)

Asian Task Force Against Domestic Violence (ATASK)

Berkshire Immigrant Center

Boston Chinatown Neighborhood Center

Boston City Councilor At-Large Ruthzee Louijeune

Boston Immigrant Justice Accompaniment Network

Boston Teachers Union

Brazilian Women’s Group

Brazilian Worker Center

Brockton Workers Alliance

Cape Cod Coalition for Safe Communities

Central West Justice Center

Centro Presente

Children’s Law Center of Massachusetts

Citizens for Public Schools

Coalition for a Better Acre

Coalition for Safe Communities

Community Action Agency of Somerville, Inc.

Community Economic Development Center New Bedford

Dominican Development Center/ Boston Immigrant Worker Center

East Boston Community Council

East Boston Neighborhood Health Center

Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program

Harvard Representation Initiative

Health Law Advocates

Hildreth Institute

Housing = Health

Immigrant Family Services Institute (IFSI-USA)

Immigrants’ Assistance Center, Inc. (IAC)

International Institute of New England

Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action

Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston

League of Women Voters of Marblehead

League of Women Voters of Massachusetts

MAPA Translations, Inc.

Massachusetts Action for Justice

Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers (MAPS)

Massachusetts Appleseed Center for Law and Justice

Massachusetts Association of Teachers of Speakers of Other Languages (MATSOL)

Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless

Massachusetts Education Justice Alliance

Massachusetts Immigrant Collaborative

Massachusetts Law Reform Institute

Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA)

Maverick Landing Community Services (MLCS)

Mayor Ballantyne, City of Somerville

Mayor’s Office for Immigrant Advancement

Merrimack Valley Project

MetroWest Legal Services

Metrowest Worker Center – Casa

Multicultural Education, Training & Advocacy (META) Inc.

New England Justice for Our Neighbors

Northeast Justice Center

Northeastern University School of Law Immigrant Justice Clinic

Pathway for Immigrant Workers, Inc.

Paulist Center Immigrant Advocacy Group

Progressive Massachusetts

Rian Immigrant Center

Rosie’s Place

Saheli Inc

Sisters of St. Joseph of Boston

Somerville Homeless Coalition, Inc.

Somerville Public Schools

Stories Inspiring Movements (SIM)

Student Clinic for Immigrant Justice

The Welcome Project

TRUE ALLIANCE CENTER INC

uAspire

Unitarian Universalist Mass Action

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1445

YWCA Central MA

Advocates, Students, and Legislators Demand Comprehensive Sex Ed

By Jan Soma, Progressive Needham

Earlier today, over 200 advocates, legislators, and staffers came together in the Great Hall of the Massachusetts State House to join forces in a spirited rally/lobby event focused on sex education in our schools. 

The Healthy Youth Act — An Act relative to healthy youth (H544/S268) — was first introduced in 2011. It has been passed unanimously by the Senate, but has not been brought to the floor for a vote in the House. 

At the event, lead sponsors Rep. Jim O’Day (D-West Boylston), Rep. Vanna Howard (D-Lowell), and Sen. Sal DiDomenico (D-Everett) spoke of this commonsense bill as vital to the health of our young people. A graduating senior from the Worchester Technical School, Lexis Keys, talked frankly about how we need to do better to educate our young people about sexual health and relationships. Planned Parenthood Vice President of Education, Learning and Engagement Jennifer Hart shared the results of a Guttmacher Institute study that shows Massachusetts as having a sex ed score of zero. Fourteen other states are doing better than we are.

The consensus of the speakers and the audience was that we can and must do better. Of likely voters in Massachusetts, 92% believe that all students have the right to receive sex ed in high school. Sex ed has been shown to reduce bullying and abuse, helps students form healthy relationships and improves their academic performance.

Some hope that having a new governor who is supportive of sexual health education might tip the balance this session. After the rally, advocates fanned out to speak with their legislators to urge their support or to thank them for their ongoing efforts to pass this bill.