Sheriffs and county jail leaders told the Special Commission on Correctional Consolidation and Collaboration that local detention facilities now hold more people than the Massachusetts Department of Correction and that their programming and reentry work are central to lowering recidivism.

“Local is best,” Sheriff Nick Cocchi said as he opened the Massachusetts Sheriffs Association presentation to the commission. He and other sheriffs described a largely pretrial population in county facilities — “61% pretrial,” Cocchi said — and listed programs intended to stabilize people with substance use and serious mental illness as soon as they enter custody.

The sheriffs framed their presentation around three points: the operational differences between county houses of correction and the state Department of Correction; the breadth of rehabilitative and reentry programs in county facilities; and fiscal and staffing pressures that affect how those services are delivered. Sheriff Cocchi said county jails process many short stays and arrests: “In 2024, sheriffs had just under 28,100 admissions,” he said, and noted sheriffs’ offices recorded more admissions and releases than the Department of Correction in that period.

The presentation listed 1,260 distinct programs across county facilities — including behavioral health and substance-use treatment, educational and vocational training, and community reinvestment work — and emphasized medication-assisted treatment (MAT) availability. “We are the first state where all sheriffs’ offices provide all forms of medication-assisted treatment,” a presenter said, and Suffolk and Barnstable counties were cited for early adoption of injectable and naltrexone options.

Sheriffs described a shift in how some housing is used: with lower overall facility populations they have repurposed beds for specialized units such as mental-health units, medication-assisted-treatment wings and an older-incarcerated-unit developed with academic partners. Middlesex County’s new 55-and-older housing unit, developed with Boston University and UMass Boston research, was highlighted as a first-in-the-nation model intended to reduce recidivism by tailoring programming and environment to older adults’ needs.

Speakers repeatedly linked reentry success to three practical elements: stable housing, employment and wraparound supports. “There’s 3 major components to reentry. Reentry, housing, employment, and wraparound services,” one sheriff said. Sheriffs described county-run reentry centers (for example, Berkshire’s Second Street Second Chances, Middlesex’s Restoration Center and Norfolk’s Hope Center) as community-facing hubs that people can return to for ongoing support after release.

Presenters also stressed fixed and rising costs that affect services. Cocchi noted fiscal pressure from rising health care and staffing costs and from the loss of some revenue streams: “Food’s gone up. Gas has gone up. The transportation of our vehicles. The electricity. ... Those are the pieces that cost money.” He warned that some grant or commissary-derived funds that historically supported education and treatment “are gone.”

The commission received operational and demographic figures, including sheriffs’ FY25 budget totals presented in the talk: sheriffs’ offices listed at just under $714 million for FY25 and the Massachusetts Department of Correction shown at roughly $706–$707 million on the slide deck. Presenters emphasized that lower daily counts have enabled more specialized care and that standardized assessment tools remain an outstanding need to make program data comparable across counties.

The meeting also included routine business: approval of last month’s minutes. The chair called for approval and said, “All in favor, aye. Opposed, no. Hearing none, the minutes are approved.”

The commission and sheriffs agreed to post the presentation and related materials for committee members, and staff gave tentative dates for future meetings. Commissioners and sheriffs said they would return to the commission for further discussion and for a Department of Correction presentation at a future meeting.

The sheriffs’ presentation provided the commission with a county-level view of custody, programming and reentry investments and highlighted operational distinctions that sheriffs said should inform any discussion of consolidation or structural change.