Electronic Mail In Written Comments
01 Email
From: Melissa Dalton
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 12:06 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Re: 103 CMR 483 Notice of Public Hearing
Please accept my written testimony in support of the proposed changes to 103 CMR483 regarding visitation within Massachusetts correctional facilities.
My name is Melissa Dalton, and I travel from Orlando, Florida to visit my incarcerated loved one at NCCI Gardner. These trips take time, money, planning, and emotional strength because family connection does not stop at prison walls.
Families already go through extensive security procedures before entering facilities. We comply with strict dress codes, searches, identification checks, metal detectors, and screening procedures every visit. We understand the importance of safety and security.
What is difficult to understand is why, after all of these measures are already in place, families are still denied basic human comfort during visits. In many cases, only a brief hug is allowed at the beginning and end of a visit. No holding hands. No comforting touch during emotional moments. No reassurance for people trying to hold their families together through incarceration.
These restrictions affect mental health on both sides of the visiting room. Families leave emotionally exhausted. Incarcerated individuals return to housing units carrying more stress, frustration, depression, and hopelessness. Strong family connection does the opposite. It creates emotional stability, reduces tension inside facilities, improves behavior, and supports rehabilitation and successful reentry.
During my last special visit, I spent nearly eight hours in the visiting room with my four year old grandson. The drink vending machines were not working, food options were minimal, and my grandson had no access to water during the visit. These environments are already stressful for children and families. Basic human needs and basic dignity should not be overlooked.
A prison system operates more smoothly when people are treated with humanity, consistency, and respect. Strong leadership recognizes that safety and rehabilitation work together, not against each other. The proposed changes to 103 CMR 483 move in that direction.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Melissa Dalton
02 Email
From: Leonela Montalban
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 4:34 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: I support the proposed changes to 103 CMR 483
I am writing in support of this bill because these changes are important for families like mine. My husband has been incarcerated at NCCI Gardner since April 2019. Due to my health issues and transportation problems, I have not been able to see him in over a year. When I am able to find transportation, I usually visit once every two weeks or once a month. One of the hardest parts of visitation is the long wait during processing and then waiting again for inmates to come into the visiting room. By the time visits begin, valuable time together is already lost.
Another concern is the vending machines during visits. Many times they are empty or not working properly. Sharing a small meal or snack during visits helps families feel normal and connected during limited time together. Those small moments mean more than people realize.
The biggest thing missing is human contact. Sitting side by side and holding hands brings comfort, emotional support, and a sense of connection for both inmates and their loved ones. Families are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for basic human connection and dignity. Strong family bonds help mental health, strengthen relationships, and create safer and more positive environments inside correctional facilities.
Thanks for taking the time to read my letter.
Leonela Montalban
03 Email
From: Melissa Dalton
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 10:20 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Concerns Regarding Visitation Practices and Proposed 103 CMR 483
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express concerns regarding the proposed 103 CMR 483 visitation regulations and the way visitation practices are currently enforced at North Central Correctional Institution.
The proposed regulation states that the Department recognizes the importance of family connection, rehabilitation, and successful reentry. Yet many families continue to experience visitation in an atmosphere filled with uncertainty and fear of crossing unclear boundaries. The regulation allows "commonly accepted public displays of affection," including one hug and closed mouth kiss at the beginning and end of a visit, but never defines what qualifies as "brief" or "excessive." This leaves families trying to follow standards that are subjective and inconsistently enforced.
Another concern involves seating restrictions. The proposed language specifically applies side by side seating restrictions to medium and maximum security institutions. NCCI Gardner is a minimum security facility, which raises reasonable questions about why similar restrictions appear to be enforced there as well.
Families understand the need for safety and security. Visitors already go through extensive screening procedures before entering the facility. The concern is whether vague standards and inconsistent enforcement are creating unnecessary stress during visits meant to preserve family bonds and support rehabilitation.
I respectfully ask that these concerns be taken seriously during the review and implementation of 103 CMR 483.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Melissa Dalton
04 Email
From: Ana Dworsack
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2026 8:34 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: i.i. visiting procedure103 CMR 483.00
ATTN:
Ms. Michele Dupuis-Clarke, Program Coordinator III, Department of Correction
70 Franklin St. Suite 600
Boston, MA. 02110
I , [Redacted] a currently Incarcerated Individual at NCCI Gardner, would like to go on record in support of the changes presented by Incarcerated Individuals to the visiting procedures, seating, screening, and all other matters include. I have been incarcerated since 2016, and have been in DOC Custody since 2018. In such time there has been substantial changes to the visit/visitor policy(ies) that have destroyed, crippled, and hinder familial, romantic as well as friendly and business relationships for me and many other incarcerated men and women in our state.
My family and friends has informed me on multiple occasions how they felt disrespected, degraded, and belittled, and in some cases violated during the screening/searching process. I have not seen my mother since 2016 (while still in county jail) because she was turned away by a correctional officer with a disrespectful attitude and comments. I quote "I love you but will never step foot in a prison, because of the way that woman treated me," are the words or something to the like, that repeat in so many of our minds. One incident, my friend was turned away because correctional staff said she "looked like she was on something." After being offended, and disrespected, and explaining she didn't even smoke cigarettes, willing to take a breathalyzer test, and field sobriety test, she was still rejected and I never received a visit, and the friendship dissolved after this interaction during the screening procedure. Another incident was a male staff member made comments to my loved one that made her feel uncomfortable, to the point she reported it to staff. As well as a situation during processing when a female staff was aggressive and "handsie" during the pat down. Most recently my girlfriend was removed from the visit room by the IPS, brought back out to the lobby asked a series of questions, subjected to search of her person and locker, and smelled by a drug detecting canine, because she reported to the superintendent and commissioner their treatment of us by the correctional staff, at this facility alone. Which is a common part of the retaliatory tactic used by the staff to prevent families from visiting their loved ones. A constant topic of conversation about visits is "why do I have to bring in my registration of my vehicle?" We still have not received an answer to this.
In direct attention to "video correspondence/visits" twenty (20) minutes, three (3) times a week is not sufficient time for families that can't come to in person visits or live in other states or countries. To begin with it these kiosk are constantly in need of the receiver being replaced, the camera reset or fixed, or just completely offline. The system is so slow that every time one logs in to a session the visit is shaved by two (2) to four (4) minutes. We have been given tablets with camera compatibility, with the promise of video visits, pictures, videos, and monitored instant messaging, that we do not received. Waking up to a picture of ones wife or children can be the start of a good day, rather than a bad one. A video of your child's first steps, child's first day of school, graduation, birthdays, cookouts, anniversaries, funeral, or just everyday life, and other countless moment an Incarcerated Individual loses out on can be shared. I know, I would appreciate these thing, so why wouldn't the men and women who are doing more time than myself or in some cases never coming home not enjoy or appreciate them? These forms of communication have already been implemented in many of the county jails in Massachusetts, as well as jails and prisons throughout the country, including at the federal level. These system follow the already implemented rules and regulations of all other forms of communication we have access to. Which means they do not interfere with security of the facility. The only differences are they are electronic and free. This saves our family money on postage and fees through third party providers, that add up, becoming a financial burden on our loved ones. These are things that were made free for such reasoning and issues, that have only been utilized to reduce a fraction of what they were meant to relieve.
Before COVID-19 the visiting room seating arrangements, we were able to sit side by side with our visitor(s), till this day we are seated six (6) feet across from our visitor(s) in a loud visiting room, causing everybody to try and yell over each other, while trying to hear one another and be respectful to the other families, all while following the rules of the institution of not being "too loud." These "minor", "temporary" changes for "safety" to the non incarcerated administration and personnel is nothing. But for Us, The Incarcerated, it is the difference between whether familial, friendly, or romantic visits come again in e following weeks, months, and years. A simple holding of your wife's, girlfriends, mothers, grandmothers hand, a wipe of a tear from their cheek, a light kiss in between laughter of a conversation is not "minor" thing to a person like Me, in my current situation. These are simple things many in society take for granted, and do not think twice about doing. Actions that are included the definition of "Contact" in "Contact Visit." Things that maintain a bond between people. How are We expected to conduct ourselves in society when we are being deprived of the simplest form of human interaction on a daily basis for years/decades on end? I ask humbly for the courts to show some humility, if not for us, at least for the families and friends that struggle through rain, snow, heat, and mistreatment to remind us that we are loved and human.
Respectfully Submitted,
[Redacted]
05 Email
From: Aliana Hernandez
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 11:53 AM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: 103 CMR 483
My name is Aliana Hernandez. I am 26 years old, and my father is serving LWOP. He has already served 16 years of his life. No matter how much time passes, he is still my father.
These visitation restrictions affect families deeply. When I walk into a visit emotional, overwhelmed, or hurting, I should not feel afraid to seek comfort from my own father. Right now, even simple human contact feels limited and controlled. We are told visits allow only "brief" hugs or affection, but what does "brief" even mean? That word is unclear, and families are left nervous and afraid of doing something wrong during moments that already feel painful enough.
Being able to hold my father's hand, sit beside him, or have him comfort me during a hard moment means more to me than words can explain. Those moments matter. They remind me that even though he is incarcerated, he is still human. He is still my father. One decision made 16 years ago should not erase his humanity or the role he still plays in the lives of the people who love him.
These men are still fathers, husbands, brothers, sons, and uncles. They are still people. Human connection, love, and emotional support are not threats to security. They are part of healing, mental health, and rehabilitation. I support changes to these visitation policies because families deserve dignity, clarity, and the ability to maintain healthy connections with the people they love.
06 Email
From: Leonela Montalban
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 4:17 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Testimony for Visitation Practices and Proposed 103 CMR 483
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing as the wife of an incarcerated man at NCCI Gardner regarding concerns with the proposed 103 CMR483 visitation regulations and how visitation rules are currently enforced.
The regulation says family connection and rehabilitation are important, but many families still feel stressed and unsure during visits because some rules are unclear. The policy allows a hug and closed mouth kiss at the beginning and end of visits, but terms like "brief" or "excessive" are never clearly defined. This leads to inconsistent enforcement and confusion for families trying to follow the rules.
I also question why side by side seating restrictions appear to be enforced at NCCI Gardner when the proposed regulation specifically applies those restrictions to medium and maximum security facilities. NCCI Gardner is a minimum security institution.
Families understand the need for safety and security. Visitors already go through screening before entering. The concern is whether unclear rules are creating unnecessary stress during visits that are meant to help maintain family bonds and support rehabilitation.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Leonela Montalban
07 Email
From: Cheryl Arruda
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2026 12:59 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: I support the proposed changes to 103 CMR 483
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing in support of the proposed changes to 103 CMR 483 regarding visitation in Massachusetts correctional facilities. My husband has been incarcerated at North Central Correctional Institution in Gardner since December, and I try to visit him every single week. Those visits are one of the only ways we are able to stay connected and continue feeling like a married couple through all of this.
I know we are allowed a quick hug and kiss at the beginning and end of visits, and I am thankful for that. But honestly, visits still feel uncomfortable at times because I am always nervous that simple affection will be seen as “too much.” My husband and I have always said grace before meals. During visits, we sit together with our vending machine snacks and try to keep that tradition alive, but we are not even allowed to hold hands while we pray. That may sound small, but for families like ours, those little moments matter more than people realize.
The changes being proposed in this bill are important because human connection matters. Sitting side by side, holding hands, and sharing normal moments with your spouse helps emotional and mental health for both families and incarcerated individuals. Strong family connections encourage better behavior, stability, and rehabilitation. I respectfully ask you to support these changes and support the families who are doing everything they can to stay connected to the people they love.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Cummings-Arruda
08 Email
From: Jessica Markey
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2026 10:20 AM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Visitation concerns
Dear Michele Dupuis-Clark,
My name is Jessica Markey, and I am writing regarding the ongoing concerns surrounding 103 CMR 483 and the way current visitation conditions are affecting families and incarcerated individuals.
I understand the importance of safety and security inside correctional facilities. But many of the current visitation conditions feel emotionally exhausting and unnecessarily difficult for families trying to hold on to their relationships and support systems.
One issue many visitors continue to face is the locker situation. Families already arrive stressed, emotional, and mentally drained after long drives, missed work, childcare arrangements, and financial strain. Struggling with locker access or restrictions before even entering the visiting room adds more frustration and anxiety to an already difficult day.
The vending machine issues are another ongoing problem. Something as small as sharing a snack or drink during a visit matters more than people realize. For many families, those moments are one of the only chances to feel some sense of normalcy together. When machines are broken, empty, or not working properly, it takes away another piece of comfort during time that already feels limited.
The hardest part for many of us is the limited physical contact. Walking into a visit carrying weeks or months of emotions, stress, sadness, and worry, only to be allowed a brief hug and kiss, feels cold and unnatural. Mental health is real. Human connection matters. Families should not feel emotionally punished for trying to maintain healthy bonds with their loved ones.
These policies impact more than the incarcerated population. They impact children, parents, spouses, and entire families who are trying to stay connected through one of the hardest situations a person can go through.
I hope these concerns are truly heard and considered moving forward. Families are not asking for luxury or special treatment. We are asking for humanity, consistency, and visitation practices that support rehabilitation instead of emotional isolation.
Sincerely,
Jessica Markey
09 Email
From: Diomara Pizarro
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2026 10:41 AM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Testimony 103 CMR 483
To Whom It May Concern,
I want to speak about the emotional impact visitation policies have on families and loved ones connected to NCCI Gardner and the concerns many of us have regarding 103 CMR 483.
For a lot of families, visits are the only real connection we get with the people we love. We count down the days for a few short hours together. Those visits help people mentally and emotionally more than most realize.
The experience has become harder on families. The locker issues create stress before visits even begin. People already come in nervous and worried about making mistakes or getting turned away. Small problems quickly become overwhelming when emotions are already high.
The vending machines are another issue people constantly deal with. To some people it may not seem important, but sitting together and sharing a snack or drink is one of the few normal moments families get during a visit. When machines are broken or empty, it takes away from that experience.
The lack of physical contact is one of the hardest parts emotionally. After being apart for weeks or months, getting only a quick hug and kiss feels cold and unnatural. Families leave visits emotionally drained. Children struggle with it too. Human connection matters. Mental health matters.
Most families are not asking for special treatment. We are asking to be treated like human beings. Strong family connection helps people stay hopeful, focused, and emotionally stable. Those connections should be encouraged, not limited down to the bare minimum.
Thank you for listening to the concerns of families and loved ones affected by these policies.
10 Email
From: bellefamnjuju 1989
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2026 11:52 AM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Testimony 103 CMR 483
Please accept my written testimony in support of the proposed changes to 103 CMR 483 regarding visitation within Massachusetts correctional facilities.
I honestly do not think people understand how emotionally hard visitation already is on families. You spend days looking forward to seeing someone you love, and then the visit feels rushed and restricted the whole time.
The hardest part for me is the lack of physical contact. A quick hug after not seeing someone for weeks or months feels heartbreaking. Families need real connection too. These visits affect our mental health just as much.
Even the vending machines being broken all the time adds stress. It sounds small until you are sitting there trying to make the best out of limited time together. Sharing a snack or drink is one of the only normal moments families get during visits.
I believe family connection helps rehabilitation, mental health, and hope. I hope these concerns are truly heard.
11 Email
From: Juantia Hernandez
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2026 3:06 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Testimony 103 CMR 483
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is [Redacted]. I am 16 years old, and I visit my father in prison. I support the visitation bill because I believe families deserve better treatment during visits.
[Redacted] to help families stay connected, but sometimes the process feels stressful and uncomfortable. Small changes would make a big difference for kids and families like mine.
Family support matters. When inmates stay connected to their children and loved ones, it helps their mental health and gives them hope. It also helps families heal and stay strong during difficult times.
I believe this bill supports both safety and rehabilitation. Families should not feel punished for trying to spend time with someone they love.
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter.
Sincerely,
[Redacted]
12 Email
From: Amaya Casiano
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2026 3:12 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Testimony 103 CMR 483
I am 21 years old, and my father is incarcerated at North Central Correctional Institution. Since turning 18, I was moved to the adult side of visitation, and everything changed. I went from being able to sit close to my father, hug him for comfort, and hold his hand while we prayed together, to being treated like basic human connection is wrong.
I understand rules and safety matter. But I do not understand why families are treated so cold. We are human beings. We are daughters, sons, mothers, and fathers trying to hold onto relationships through one of the hardest situations imaginable.
One of the hardest parts for me has been losing the ability to hold my father's hand during prayer. Our faith is important to us. Praying together was one of the only moments during visitation where I felt peace. Taking that away feels unnecessary and painful.
The video visit restrictions also make no sense to me. These are non contact visits through a screen. Families already struggle enough with distance, costs, work schedules, and emotional stress. Adding strict rules to a video call only makes people feel punished for trying to stay connected.
Family connection should not be treated like a privilege nobody deserves. Visits are supposed to help keep families together and support rehabilitation. Instead, many of us leave feeling emotionally drained and pushed away.
I am asking for changes to visitation policies at NCCI. Families should be treated with more compassion and dignity. Human connection matters. Faith matters. Families matter.
13 Email
From: Amy O’Hara
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2026 11:37 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: 103 CMR 483 Concerns
My name is Amy O'Hara, and my husband is serving a life sentence at North Central Correctional Institution. I respectfully ask for my testimony to be submitted to the public record.
I am thankful for the chance to finally have our voices heard. Families have been speaking up for a long time, because many of the things being enforced inside visitation are not clearly written in 103 CMR 483. There are rules being enforced differently depending on which correctional officer is working that day. Some officers allow certain things, while others do not. That causes confusion, frustration, and unfair treatment for families who are already dealing with enough stress.
When it comes to the DOC, every employee should be properly trained and on the same page. Policies should be clear and applied equally. Families should not walk into a visit wondering what rule will suddenly change that day.
All of these employees get to go home after work. They get to hug their loved ones, sit beside them, hold their hand, and receive comfort after a hard day. The men inside are still human beings, and their families are human too. We deserve fair treatment during visits. Sitting side by side with my husband should not be treated like a privilege. Being able to comfort him during moments of stress or frustration helps keep him emotionally regulated and connected to family support.
Prison is not for the weak. We understand accountability. But we should not be creating more emotional damage inside these facilities. The DOC speaks about rehabilitation and family connection, but many of these restrictions contradict those goals. Healthy family bonds help people mentally, emotionally, and behaviorally. Isolation and unnecessary restrictions do the opposite.
The vending machine and locker issues also need to be fixed. Families already spend enough money and travel long distances to visit. Simple things should not become another stressful obstacle.
I ask the Department of Correction to listen to the families who live through this every week. We are asking for fairness, consistency, humanity, and policies that support rehabilitation instead of emotional harm.
Amy O'Hara
14 Email
From: Ciara Vasconcellos
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2026 11:46 AM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Testimony 103 CMR 483
Please accept my written testimony in support of the proposed changes to 103 CMR483 regarding visitation within Massachusetts correctional facilities.
Visitation means everything to many families. It is the one time people get to see their loved ones face to face and feel connected again for a few hours.
Right now, visits feel emotionally cold. Families carry so much stress, sadness, and anxiety walking into those rooms. Only being allowed a quick hug and kiss after weeks or months apart takes an emotional toll on people.
The vending machine problems also continue to be frustrating during visits. Something as simple as sharing a snack together gives families a brief moment that feels normal and human.
I believe stronger family connection helps mental health, behavior, and rehabilitation. Families should be supported, not made to feel like emotional connection is a problem.
Thank you for considering these concerns.
15 Email
From: Sarah Santiago
Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2026 7:22 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: 103 CMR 483 Concerns / CPCS Innocence
Dear Michele Dupuis-Clarke,
My husband is currently at Gardner, and I wanted to speak honestly about how difficult visitation has become for families like mine. I understand the DOC may not view its role as rehabilitation or healing, but for families, maintaining connection is everything. These visits are not casual moments to us. They are the center of our marriage, our family bond, and the emotional support that helps us survive an incredibly painful situation.
I live in Florida and travel from out of state to see my husband. Years ago, when my oldest child was still young, we had to leave Massachusetts for economic reasons and build our life elsewhere. That decision has made maintaining family connection through incarceration even more difficult and expensive. The cost of flights, hotels, transportation, and car rentals is overwhelming. Because of the financial burden, our children and grandchildren are only able to come once a year. That means video visits are not just a convenience for us, they are essential. They are one of the only ways our children and grandchildren can continue seeing, speaking to, and feeling connected to their father and grandfather throughout the year.
My husband's case has been accepted by the innocence program, and we are preparing to go back into court to fight for his freedom. This is an incredibly emotional and painful situation that was not created by him. I ask you to imagine what it feels like to be incarcerated for something you did not do. Imagine waking up every day behind prison walls while your children grow up without you and your grandchildren know you mostly through a screen or brief visits. Imagine your wife carrying the weight of trying to hold the family together while also holding onto hope that justice will finally come. Imagine missing birthdays, milestones, ordinary family dinners, and years that can never be returned.
For families like ours, visitation is not simply a privilege or recreation. It is survival. It is the only place where we can look each other in the eyes, remind each other we are still here, and hold onto the love that prison tries so hard to strip away.
That is why it feels especially painful when video visits are treated with the same level of restriction as in person visits. Families already carry enormous emotional and financial strain. Being told what we can wear during a video visit, even from our own homes in completely different climates, feels unnecessary and disconnected from common sense. A video screen does not create a security threat.
Even during extended visits, the inability to sit side by side, hold hands naturally, or share normal human closeness is heartbreaking. Human touch matters. Sitting next to your spouse matters. A grandchild sitting close to their grandfather matters. Those small moments are what help families continue bonding despite years of separation. Restricting even simple physical closeness makes visits feel cold, clinical, and emotionally painful rather than supportive of family unity.
Every visit requires sacrifice, planning, emotional preparation, and significant expense. We do it because we love him and because maintaining these relationships matters deeply, not only to him, but to our children, grandchildren, and to our future as a family.
Families are already living with grief, separation, uncertainty, and emotional exhaustion. Phone calls are short. Visits are limited. Every single moment of connection matters. Policies that become overly restrictive do not just affect incarcerated individuals, they deeply affect spouses, children, grandchildren, parents, and loved ones who are trying desperately to keep their families together through impossible circumstances.
I ask that the Department look at these policies with more compassion, humanity, and understanding. Families should not feel punished for loving someone and trying to stay connected to them.
Thank you for your time and for allowing public testimony.
Sara Santiago
16 Email
From: Leo Brisson
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 11:29 AM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Testimony for DOC Hearing on Visitation Policy
Hello,
I'm attaching my testimony for the DOC hearing on proposed amendments to 103 CMR 483.00.
Find the text below:
Thank you for the chance to voice concerns about existing visitation policies.
As a friend of an incarcerated individual, [Redacted], whose activism and community outreach has connected many between the incarcerated and public populations, I'm deeply concerned with the DOC's unreasonably harsh restrictions on visitation.
I've come to know- [Redacted] through his effo1is to communicate and collaborate with the public, his commitment to the support of those re-entering public life and for the continued engagement of incarcerated people in the civil life of their communities. Our friendship has reflected long-standing and tireless work of public and civic participation.
Individuals like [Redacted], however, face unreasonable restrictions on this productive communication. While incarcerated individuals access higher education, involve and info1m themselves in municipal issues, and engage in dialogue about re-entry, prison and criminal justice reform, draconian regulations on visitation unreasonably hinder these positive efforts.
For example, number caps on call lists seriously hinder the ability to maintain family and professional relationships. Restrictions to video calls allowing only those on in-person visit lists impose completely illogical limits.
It is undeniably true that so many incarcerated individuals sustain positive and supportive relationships for the betterment of themselves and those outside of the walls. Ultimately, though, incarcerated individuals have a fundamental right to visit with and maintain relationships with families, loved ones and professional colleagues.
Current restrictions on the number of individuals on visit lists, inconsistent practice of visit procedures by staff, and constraints to video calling are all handful and illogical violations of the rights of incarcerated people, their loved ones and colleagues.
-Leo Brisson
17 Email
From: Greg Moschetti
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 5:04 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Proposed Changes to Visiting Procedures
Hello,
I'm a Massachusetts resident asking you to not go forward with the proposed Department of Corrections changes to visiting rules. Specifically, having to schedule visits, permanently; removing children's visiting areas, keeping caps on visitors, and long wait times to update visitor lists.
It is my point of view that more, not less, quality contact between incarcerated persons and their families should be the order of the day.
Thanks,
Greg Moschetti
[Redacted]
"Anchor the eternity of love in your own soul and embed this planet with goodness."-John Lewis
18 Email
From: Kate Flewelling
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 5:40 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Proposed changes to visiting rules
Hello,
I am writing to oppose proposed changes to visiting rules, especially:
-Having to schedule visits, permanently.
-Removing children's visiting area
-Keeping caps on visitors
-Long wait times to update visitor lists
These rules would further break family bonds, facilitate generational trauma and lead to recidivism. We should be encouraging inmates to maintain relationships with their families and support the children of incarcerated parents.
Thank you for your attention,
Kate Flewelling
[Redacted]
19 Email
From: Meghan Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 12:14 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Cc: Meghan Stewart
Subject: 103 CMR 483: Visiting Procedures
Attach: doc.pdf
Good afternoon
I have attached the required documents.
Thank you.
Attachment:
Tiana Megan Stewart
[Redacted]
June 2, 2026
Michele Dupuis-Clake program coordinator Ill
Department of correction
70 Franklin Street, suite 600
Boston, MA 02110
Subject: Feedback Regarding Inmate Visitation Experience at MCI-Shirley
Dear Michele Dupuis-Clake,
I am writing to formally bring to your attention several negative aspects of the visitation process at MCI-Shirley. While I understand and respect the necessity of strict security protocols to maintain safety, the current implementation creates unnecessary hardships for families and friends attempting to maintain vital bonds with incarcerated individuals.
During my recent visits, I experienced several systemic issues that significantly degraded the visitation experience:
Excessive Processing Delays: Visitors frequently wait for extended periods in the outer holding areas before being processed. This administrative delay severely cuts into the limited, designated visitation time.
Inconsistent Dress Code Enforcement: The rules regarding acceptable attire appear to be interpreted differently depending on the officer on duty. Clothes that are approved during one visit are arbitrarily rejected during the next, forcing visitors to travel home or miss their visit entirely.
Severely Restricted Physical Contact: The current rules allow for almost no physical bonding, which makes the visit feet clinical, sterile, and uncomfortable. Because families cannot share basic human affection, many feel the exhausting travel and stress of the facility are no longer worth the effort.
Intrusive Post-Restroom Procedures: Restroom visits during visitation are handled in a way that makes visitors feel deeply uncomfortable. The excessive surveillance, immediate suspicion, and invasive re-searching protocols that follow a basic bathroom break treat family members with hostility rather than respect.
Overpriced and Poorly Maintained Vending Services: The vending machines in the visiting room-which represent the only source of nourishment during long travel and wait times-are frequently broken, understocked, or excessively expensive.
Hostile Communication Style: While many staff members remain professional, a noticeable number of correctional officers interact with visitors in a dismissive, hostile, or demeaning manner. Visitors are citizens, not criminals, and deserve to be treated with basic human dignity.
Substandard Visiting Room Conditions: The physical environment of the visiting area is poorly ventilated, uncomfortably cold or hot depending on the season, and lacks clean, functional furniture. This environment is particularly difficult for elderly visitors and young children.
Research consistently shows that regular family visitation reduces recidivism and improves inmate behavior. However, the current atmosphere and operational inefficiencies at MCI-Shirley act as a severe deterrent to these positive interactions.
I request that your administration reviews these operational bottlenecks, standardizes dress code enforcement training for staff, and addresses the physical conditions of the visitor areas. Thank you for your time and attention to these serious matters.
Sincerely,
Tiana Stewart
20 Email
From: Nancy Ahmadifar
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 3:44 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Comments on proposed changes to visiting rules
Dear Ms. Dupuis-Clarke:
I strongly oppose the following proposed changes to the DOC visitation policy:
- Having to schedule visits, permanently.
- Removing children's visiting area
- Keeping caps on visitors
- Long wait times to update visitor lists
In years past I made over 50 visits to friends held in DOC facilities. Visits mean so much to incarcerated individuals and their families and friends. Visitation should be encouraged; obstacles should be removed, not added. Building restorative family and community connection is an essential part of public safety.
Nancy Ahmadifar
[Redacted]
21 Email
From: No Cost Calls MA
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 10:17 AM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Testimony on 103 CMR 483
Attach: Keeping Families Connected testimony on proposed DOC visiting
regulations June 2026.pdf
June 11, 2026
Dear Ms. Depuis-Clarke,
Please find attached our testimony on the proposed changes. If you could let us know that you received it and were able to open it, we would appreciate it.
Thank you.
Keeping Families Connected Coalition
Attachment:
TO: Michele Dupuis-Clarke, Program Coordinator III, MA DOC
DATE: June 11, 2026
RE: Testimony on proposed changes to 103 CMR 483: Visiting Procedures
The Keeping Families Connected Coalition opposes the changes proposed by the Department of Correction (DOC) to visiting regulations and urges the Department to support pending legislation H.2591 instead. In-person visits are a critical way that people stay in touch and maintain close, supportive relationships with each other. Years of research as well as personal testimony show that maintaining relationships is essential to individual and family wellbeing, a better climate for both incarcerated people and staff, and a smooth and sustainable return to the community.
But the DOC has imposed numerous restrictions since 2018, with visits dropping dramatically as a result. The Coalition represents numerous people directly affected by DOC policies, their allies, and supportive organizations across the state. We are aware of numerous barriers that people experience with current visitation rules and urge the DOC to change course and adopt its pre-2018 regulations in order to make visits more accessible.
Neither the current policies and practices nor the proposed regulations truly support the DOC’s public position: “We recognize the importance visitors have on an inmate's well-being, successful reentry into the community, and strongly encourage family reunification [and] and want to make your visiting experience pleasant and secure for everyone” (DOC website).
Our testimony focuses on four key proposed changes that we strongly oppose:
- Requiring people to schedule visits in advance, which has already caused hardship and limited access to visits;
- New mandated seating arrangements, which threaten the children’s visiting areas that are so important for families;
- Caps on visitors, which are harmful and counterproductive; and
- Long wait times to update visitor lists, which needlessly limit access to visits.
Requiring people to schedule visits in advance causes hardship and limits access to visits. Proposed item 483.07(2) allows the Commissioner to require visitors to schedule in advance. The proposal does not say how this requirement would work. Since individual prisons have rolled out this requirement over the past two years, it has caused a great deal of difficulty and frustration for people. First, the only way to schedule in advance is to call the one designated staff person at the prison Monday - Friday. This means that people have to call on Friday at the latest to schedule a visit for the Tuesday following one of the many Monday holidays, a task that requires a lot of planning ahead. At some prisons, the hours to call are 9-5; at others, 8-4. Many people are working during these hours and often have jobs that do not allow them flexibility to call except on their breaks. Yet one call is rarely enough; people have had to call over and over again because of a busy signal or because the phone keeps ringing with no ability to leave a message.
As a result of this and also miscommunication and mistakes within the prison, many people have shown up to visit only to be told their name is not on the list, or not on the list for the time blocks they asked for. People have gotten phone calls from confused and anxious loved ones who were told they had a visit on a certain day at a certain time, when they heard something different from the person who was planning to visit. When someone gets sick or has an urgent matter come up, they can’t simply ask another person to visit in their place because there’s no way for that person to schedule.
This change has taken a toll on families already dealing with the stress of incarceration, and undermined the in-person visits the DOC says it is committed to ensuring.
We strongly oppose making this requirement permanent. We have heard no logical explanation for it, especially given that each individual who shows up to visit a loved one in prison has already been approved by the DOC.
If, however, DOC is going to require people to schedule visits, then DOC must provide a reliable online option to schedule visits as well as a telephone option.
Children’s visiting areas are essential for families. The language of item 483.07 4(i) would end the children’s visiting area at MCI-Norfolk and other prisons that have the same set up. It is extremely important for each prison to have a space where children can interact with their parents and other valued adults in their lives.
If finalized, the new regulations must state explicitly that they do not apply to children’s visiting areas.
Caps on visitors are harmful and counterproductive. While we appreciate that by slightly increasing the number of approved visitors the DOC is acknowledging that current policy needs to change, DOC should end caps altogether (item 483.10). There is no reason to cap the number of visitors when the DOC screens and approves each visitor in advance. DOC limits the number of adults who can visit an individual in person at any one time, so there is no issue of 20 visitors showing up at once.
Incarcerated people who have a large support network are forced to pick and choose who they will see. Our members have described how hurtful this is. It has resulted in older relatives who would like to visit and can only do so occasionally to yield their spot to someone who can visit more often. It means that someone who lives farther away gives up on the chance of visiting in person to allow for someone who lives closer to do so. Instead of imposing arbitrary caps on visitors, DOC should be doing everything it can to maximize opportunities for people in custody to see loved ones.
Long wait times to update visitor lists needlessly limit access to visits, causing harm. Although the proposed change in item 483.10 would modestly improve upon the very restrictive current rule, the timeframe is still needlessly slow. If an individual in prison can update their list only once every four months, and the DOC has another month (20 business days) to process the application, that means people are still waiting five months to be able to change their list and visit with someone new. This long lag time means that people miss out on seeing friends and family who come to Massachusetts from out of state unless those potential visitors can plan half a year in advance.
Testimony from other organizations and individuals will describe in detail the high value that people place on in-person visits. We encourage the DOC to put these proposed changes aside and consult with people directly affected by DOC rules to design regulations that will truly improve access to visits and conditions of visits.
Sincerely,
Keeping Families Connected Coalition
22 Email
From: Martha L. Leader
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 11:47 AM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Comments on DOC proposed visiting changes
Hello,
I am writing to you as a member of First Parish in Brookline.
I would urge you to drop the following changes:
Having to schedule visits, permanently
Removing children's visiting area
Keeping caps on visitors
Long wait times to update visitor lists
I believe the goal of incarceration is to provide pathways to re-enter the community successfully. If it isn't, it should be. And any options that increase inmates' chances to stay connected to family, friends and community will also help them with re-entry, rehabilitation and recovery.
Likewise, these connections help the families and friends on the outside to maintain relationships with their loved ones.
I see no reason or justification to make these visits more regulated and difficult.
Please reply.
Thank you for taking my comments.
Martha Leader
[Redacted]
23 Email
From: Kelly Pratt
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 12:17 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Comments re:
Dear Ms. Dupis-Clarke and Members of the Department:
I respectfully oppose the proposed amendments that remove any expectation that visitors will receive the full advertised visitation period and allow visitation time to be reduced due to staffing limitations, operational needs, infrastructure constraints, capacity issues, and other facility-related factors.
Families are already experiencing shortened visits due to delayed processing, "system updates" (a "system update" occurs every Monday at 12pm- which continually and predictably reduces visitations by at least an hour- this seems an easily remedied problem yet it persists) institutional codes, and inconsistent implementation of visitation procedures. My concern is that this language creates a pathway for operational issues to continually reduce visitation time without accountability, transparency, or recourse. Removing guaranteed visitation protections by shifting this language in policy risks normalizing those reductions rather than addressing the underlying problems.
I am also concerned that these restrictions are being proposed without publicly available Massachusetts DOC data demonstrating that reducing contact visitation has resulted in measurable reductions in contraband, overdoses, drug activity, or deaths within correctional facilities. The broader correctional literature recognizes that contraband enters facilities through multiple pathways, including staff, contractors, attorneys, mail, and visitors. Visitation, however, consistently correlates with improved institutional behavior, family stability, and successful reentry outcomes.
This amendment normalizes reduced visitation due to operational issues and creates legal and administrative risk by formally authorizing diminished family contact without clear standards, transparency, accountability, or recourse when visitation time is lost.
It is concerning when the burden of addressing safety, staffing, operational, or contraband concerns appears to fall primarily on families and visitors. If contraband reduction is the objective, policy decisions should be guided by empirical evidence or data and should address all potential sources of contraband- including staff, contractors, mail, and visitors, rather than further limiting family contact without clear evidence that such restrictions improve safety outcomes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Kelly
24 Email
From: Women & Incarceration Project
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 12:25 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Comments on Proposed Changes to 103 CMR 483: Visiting Procedures
Attach: WIP Comments on DOC Proposed Changes to 103 CMR 483 June 2026.pdf
June 11, 2026
Dear Ms. Dupuis-Clarke,
We submit the attached comments on the proposed changes associated with today's hearing.
Thank you for the Department's consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Women & Incarceration Project
Attachment:
Women & Incarceration Project
Center for Women’s Health & Human Rights
Suffolk University
sites.suffolk.edu/wiproject
Testimony opposing proposed change to 103 CMR 483: Visiting Procedures
June 11, 2026
As a group of academics, legal experts, and social workers with decades of experience, the Women and Incarceration Project concludes that the proposed regulations would negatively impact women as both people who are incarcerated and people who visit incarcerated loved ones. Visits are a vital lifeline for incarcerated people and their families, with benefits including improved health, calmer atmospheres in prisons, and smoother reintegration to society (Wang 2021).
Women in prison receive fewer visitors than men in prison. It is therefore incumbent upon the DOC to do everything it can to facilitate visits to women in prison.
While women are a small fraction of those in DOC’s custody, women make up the majority of visitors to people in prison. Nationwide, one in four women has an incarcerated family member (Norwood, 2022). Women shoulder the burden of logistics, arranging for visits, paying for visits (gasoline, bus tickets), taking time off work, and so on (deVuono-powell et al., 2015).
The proposed regulations will further burden women. We particularly oppose the following proposed changes:
- Limits on the number of approved visitors
- Mandatory advanced scheduling of visits
- Limits on lap sitting and mandatory seating arrangements that jeopardize children’s visiting experiences
Limits on the number of approved visitors. Proposed change 483.10(1) implicitly acknowledges the benefit of allowing visits with more people, but still imposes an arbitrary limit and gives the biggest increase to the fewest people – those in minimum security/pre-release. This change will not necessarily even affect women, as DOC contracts with county sheriffs for minimum security/pre-release spaces, and those county institutions have their own visiting rules that they apply to women in DOC’s legal custody (Sered, 2024).
We oppose caps on the number of approved visitors. Some people have a large support network and others have no visitors at all. The more people who can visit in person, the better.
Proposed change 483.07(2) would allow the Commissioner to require visitors to schedule in advance. The proposal does not indicate how the change would be carried out, and would file the reason with each prison, not the public. Prior to releasing these proposed regulatory changes, the DOC has been permitting prisons one by one to require visitors to make an appointment at least 24 hours in advance. This has caused great disruption because the only way to schedule a visit is by phone during regular weekday working hours. In addition, visitors have been turned away after making the trip to the prison because an internal snafu left their name off the day’s list of visitors.
This requirement does not provide sufficient flexibility and makes little sense when each individual coming to visit is already known to the DOC, which has vetted them. Although preventing contraband is listed as a reason to require people to schedule in advance, each individual still has to submit to a search before entering the visiting room. This change has already proved harmful and should not be made permanent.
- The changes proposed in 483.07 34(g) and 4(i) are detrimental to children. 34(g) changes from “shall” to “may” regarding whether children under age eight can sit on the “accompanying parent/guardian’s lap.” Does this mean children cannot sit on their incarcerated parent’s lap? If so, why has this been made discretionary instead of something children and parents can expect? Sitting on a parent’s lap is a basic form of closeness and communication for young children. 4(i) mandates a certain seating arrangement and thus jeopardizes children’s visiting areas at some prisons. Women often bring children to visit their parents or other relatives. It is challenging enough to make children feel comfortable going into a prison, having to be screened and watched by uniformed officers and follow rules throughout their visit. Designated areas for children are critical to fostering positive visits and DOC regulations must not undermine the spaces designated for children.
We commend the change from “inmate” to “incarcerated individual.” However, based on our years of research and practice, we oppose the proposed regulations.
Sincerely,
Norma Wassel, MSW, LICSW, on behalf of the Women & Incarceration Project
Sources cited:
Wang, Leah. 2021. “Research roundup: The positive impacts of family contact for incarcerated people
and their families.” Prison Policy Institute website.
deVuono-powell, Saneta, Chris Schweidler, Alicia Walters, and Azadeh Zohrabi. 2015. Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families. Prison Policy Institute website.
Norwood, Candice. Sept. 12, 2022. “1 in 4 women have a family member in prison, leaving them to carry the burden at home.” 19thnews.org
Sered, Susan. 2024. Women and Massachusetts County Jails: An Introduction. Women & Incarceration Project, Center for Women’s Health and Human Rights, Suffolk University website.
25 Email
From: Laysea Gonzalez
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 12:47 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Public Comment - 103 CMR 483: Visiting Procedures
Dear Department of Correction,
I am submitting this written comment regarding the proposed changes to 103 CMR483 Visiting Procedures.
I am speaking as a family member of an incarcerated individual, and I want to begin by emphasizing how important contact visits are for maintaining family bonds, especially between parents and their children. From my personal experience, I have seen firsthand how these visits have positively impacted my child's father while incarcerated. Being able to see, hold, and physically interact with his son has given him motivation, accountability, and a strong reason to stay focused on improving himself and preparing for his return home. These visits are not just emotional moments for our family-they are a meaningful part of rehabilitation and reentry preparation.
In addition, I would like to raise concerns about the visiting process itself. The enforcement of dress code policies has become increasingly inconsistent and overly strict, often making it difficult for families-especially women-to comply. The rules appear to change or be enforced differently depending on staff, which creates confusion and frustration for families trying to simply visit their loved ones.
There are also concerns regarding the treatment of visitors during processing. In my experience, Correctional Officer Staff sometimes enforce rules based on personal interpretation rather than consistent DOC policy, which leads to inconsistency in how families are treated.
I also want to address issues affecting parents and infants during visitation. Bringing in necessary baby items such as formula and supplies is often made unnecessarily difficult. In addition, the way visitors are spoken to during this process can feel disrespectful and dismissive, as though families are being treated as if they have done something wrong simply for coming to visit their loved ones. This creates an already stressful situation that could instead be handled with dignity and professionalism.
I visit MCI-Norfolk once a week with my eight-month-old son, and I have experienced repeated and inconsistent issues during processing regarding his formula. On one occasion, after completing processing and entering the visiting room, I was aggressively questioned by the CO on duty regarding my child’s formula. The CO on duty, Antonie, also would not allow me to wash my son’s bottle in the bathroom. Due to the confusion and conflicting instructions, I had to contact the Superintendent’s office to confirm the rules. I was then advised to bring in a printed copy of the DOC policy and present it during processing in order to be allowed entry with my son’s formula. This should not have been necessary. Officers should not be able to make up or individually interpret rules outside of DOC policy. Staff should be familiar with and consistently follow established procedures without requiring visitors to provide proof of policy. Feeding and caring for an infant during a visit should not be this difficult or stressful.
While I understand the importance of maintaining security and order within facilities, I believe there is also a responsibility to ensure that policies are applied consistently and that families are treated with respect. Visitation should not only be secure, but also humane, family-centered, and supportive of rehabilitation.
I respectfully ask that the Department consider both the importance of maintaining contact visits and the need to improve consistency, clarity, and respectful treatment in the visitation process.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Laysea Gonzalez
26 Email
From: Laura Walsh
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 12:49 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Public Comment on Proposed Amendment to 103 CMR 483: Visiting Procedures
Attach: Proposed Amendments to 103 CMR 483_Visiting Procedures – Laura Walsh Testimony.pdf
Dear Ms. Dupuis-Clarke,
Please find attached my written testimony regarding the proposed amendments to 103 CMR 483: Visiting Procedures.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment and for your consideration of these concerns. Sincerely,
Laura Walsh
[Redacted]
Attachment:
June 11, 2026
RE: Testimony on Proposed Amendments to 103 CMR 483: Visiting Procedures
Dear Department of Correction Representatives,
My name is Laura Walsh, and I am the mother of an individual incarcerated at Old Colony Correctional Center. I am writing to express my opposition to several of the proposed changes to 103 CMR 483 and to urge the Department of Correction to reconsider the direction it has taken regarding visitation policies.
Over the past several years, I have witnessed a steady increase in barriers to visitation. Rather than making it easier for families to maintain meaningful connections with their incarcerated loved ones, the system has become increasingly restrictive. The proposed changes appear to formalize many of these restrictions, despite the significant hardships they have already created for families. I share the concerns raised by the Keeping Families Connected Coalition that visitation policies have become more restrictive since 2018 and that families have experienced a corresponding decline in meaningful access to visits.
As I explain in detail below, I oppose the following proposed changes because they make supportive connections harder to maintain:
- having to schedule visits in advance
- caps on the number of visitors
- long bureaucratic processes to change visitor lists
One of the most concerning changes is the advance scheduling requirement. In my experience, this policy has created confusion, stress, and missed opportunities for connection. Family members and friends (who are already approved visitors, more on that below) cannot simply decide to visit when time and circumstances allow.
On multiple occasions, I or another family member have called ahead to schedule visits only to discover later that the visit was entered incorrectly or omitted from the schedule altogether. In one instance, my son was informed that he had a visit scheduled on a day when no visit had actually been arranged. In another, a family member who had followed all required procedures was not placed on the schedule. These situations required additional calls to resolve and could easily have resulted in a visitor being turned away. Rather than improving the visitation process, the advance scheduling system has introduced additional opportunities for mistakes and confusion.
The advance scheduling requirement has also added unnecessary stress to an already difficult situation. Families often must make repeated phone calls during limited business hours simply to arrange a visit. A longtime friend of my son's, who was already on his approved visitor list, once wanted to visit on short notice but was unable to do so because the visit had not been scheduled in advance. What would have been a simple and meaningful opportunity for connection became a missed opportunity because of an administrative requirement. Policies intended to support visitation should make family connections easier to maintain, not harder.
I am also deeply concerned that the proposed regulations continue to impose caps on approved visitors. While the proposal would slightly increase the number of people who can be on a visitor list, it does not address the underlying problem: there should not be a cap at all.
Every visitor must already complete an application process and be approved by the Department. In addition, the Department already limits the number of visitors who may attend a visit at one time. Given these existing safeguards, I do not understand why incarcerated individuals are forced to choose between supportive family members, friends, mentors, faith leaders, and other positive influences.
My son comes from a large and loving family and has a broad network of people who care about him and want to support his growth and successful return to the community. Yet he has been forced to decide who is "important enough" to occupy one of a limited number of visitor slots. His 96-year-old grandfather who passed away in February would have loved to have visited, but had chosen not to take a place on the list because his visits would have been infrequent. Other relatives, mentors, and lifelong friends have been unable to visit for the same reason.
Over the years, I have lost count of how many times someone has said to me, "I would love to visit your son." Too often my response has been, "I wish you could, but the process makes it very difficult." Even when someone is willing to make the effort, they may need to wait months for an opening on a visitor list, complete paperwork through the mail, and then hope the timing works out. If they later come off the list to allow someone else an opportunity to visit, they must start the entire application process over again because previous applications are not retained. Human connection should not be treated as a scarce resource that families must ration. These barriers do not strengthen families or support rehabilitation. They discourage the very connections that help people maintain hope and successfully return to their communities.
I am particularly concerned about the impact these policies have on individuals who struggle with mental health challenges. Maintaining relationships while incarcerated is already difficult. The current visitor-list system requires people to anticipate months in advance who will remain active in their lives. An incarcerated individual may add someone to their list, wait months for the next opportunity to make changes, wait again for the application to be processed, and then wait for the prospective visitor to complete and return paperwork by mail. By the time the process is complete, only a short period may remain before the list can be changed again. Policies that make it so difficult to maintain these connections disproportionately affect those who are already struggling with isolation, anxiety, depression, and other mental health challenges.
The Department frequently acknowledges the importance of family connection, rehabilitation, and successful reintegration, and yet employs restrictive policies that undermine those connections. Those goals are best supported by expanding opportunities for in-person visitation, not by creating additional barriers.
I urge the Department not to codify these restrictions into formal regulations. Instead, I ask that the Department reconsider the many visitation restrictions that have been implemented since 2018, work to restore more accessible visitation practices, and consult directly with incarcerated individuals, family members, and other affected stakeholders before moving forward with permanent regulatory changes.
The people most likely to succeed after incarceration are those who remain connected to supportive family members, mentors, friends, faith communities, and other positive influences. Strong family and community connections benefit incarcerated individuals, families, institutions, and public safety. The regulations should be designed to support those connections, not make them harder to maintain.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Laura Walsh
[Redacted]
27 Email
From: Josie Jean Bagnall Cruz
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 12:45 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Upcoming visitation policy changes 2026
To whom it may concern,
I hope you are well. I am writing following today’s Zoom meeting, held on 11th of June 2026, where the proposed changes to visitation regulations were discussed. I participated actively in the meeting and shared my perspective on these matters.
I formally request a full reconsideration of the visitation policy framework. While I support the proposed increase in capacity from 8 to 12 visitors on an inmates visitation list, which is a positive step, I must express grave concerns about the current process. Physical contact is already severely limited—visitors can barely hug their loved ones, and must sit opposite them, making connection strained. To eliminate contact entirely would be inhumane, especially for children, who rely on these interactions. I also do not understand why seating is so restrictive; visitors cannot sit next to their loved ones, which diminishes the quality of interaction.
In addition, I want to emphasize that the proposed removal of physical contact between children and their incarcerated parents would be especially harmful. These minimal interactions are vital for a child’s emotional well-being, and removing them would be devastating. Visits should be a source of comfort, especially for young children, not a sterile interaction.
I also stress that the decline in visits, while coinciding with an increase in contraband should not be attributed solely to visitors. During the meeting, I noted that 99% of visitors follow the rules, including the outfit policy. Thus, the discretion of the correctional officer on duty must be removed. Decisions on visit approval should not rely on individual officers, given that almost all visitors comply. A wider structural review is needed, as it is unfair to penalize compliant visitors while the contraband issue persists.
I appreciate your attention to these crucial matters. I trust that, under your leadership, we can develop a visitation policy that is fair, humane, and supportive of all families.
Kind regards,
Josie Bagnall- Cruz
28 Email
From: Denise Barbosa
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 1:39 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Department of Correction 103 CMR 483 – Visiting Procedures
Good Afternoon,
I'm speaking today as someone who loves a person incarcerated at MCI Shirley, and as someone who has seen firsthand how difficult visitation has become for families and for the men inside.
Visits are supposed to be about connection, support, and love. Instead, the process often feels stressful from start to finish. Families have to go through approvals, call ahead to schedule, and hope there's availability. Then when we finally get there, the atmosphere can feel so strict and tense that it's hard to simply enjoy being with the person we've missed.
One of the hardest parts is not being able to have normal human contact. Something as simple as holding hands can mean the world to someone who hasn't seen their loved one in weeks or months. Those small moments remind them that they're still loved, still valued, and not forgotten.
What concerns me most is the message this sends to incarcerated individuals. Instead of feeling connected to their families, many are left feeling like a burden. They see the stress, the obstacles, and the effort it takes just to spend a little time together. No one should feel like a burden to the people who love them.
We understand the importance of safety and security, but there has to be a better balance. Family support is one of the strongest tools for rehabilitation and hope. Strong family connections help people heal, grow, and prepare for a successful future.
Also, pertaining to video visits. I'm trying to understand why video visitation policies have to be so strict. Some incarcerated individuals have close family members who live outside the country, and in some cases some family members may not be approved for in-person visits because of their criminal history. If a video visit is highly monitored and there are no security concerns or threats identified during the call, why is the visit considered an issue? Maintaining family connections is important for rehabilitation and emotional well-being, so I would appreciate a better understanding of the reasoning behind these restrictions.
We're asking for change because these visits matter. They matter to parents, spouses, children, and the men inside who are trying to hold on to the relationships that give them strength. Visits should leave people feeling loved and connected, not discouraged and defeated.
Best,
Denise Sintra
29 Email
From: Mike Walsh
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 3:43 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Testimony for proposed amendments to 103 CMR 483
Attach: Mike103-CMR-483 Comments.docx
Hi Michele. Please accept the attached written comments regarding the proposed amendments.
MIKE WALSH
Attachment:
MIKE WALSH
Written Comments Regarding Proposed Amendments to 103 CMR 483
My name is Mike Walsh, and my son is incarcerated at Old Colony Correctional Center. I am writing to express my concerns about, and opposition to, the proposed amendments to 103 CMR 483. It is generally understood that people are more likely to succeed after incarceration when they maintain relationships with supportive family members, mentors, friends, and other positive influences. Strong family and community ties benefit incarcerated individuals, their loved ones, correctional institutions, and public safety.
First, I would like to address the unnecessary and arbitrary limits created by visitor lists. Anyone seeking to visit an incarcerated loved one must apply, undergo vetting, and receive approval from the Department. Because every visitor is already screened, limiting the number of approved visitors does not improve safety or security. Rather, it needlessly harms incarcerated individuals and the loved ones who support them.
My son is fortunate to have many family members, friends, and other supportive people who want to stay connected with him through visits. Under the restricted visitor list policy, he must choose who may visit during each four-month period. As a result, many friends, relatives, and lifelong mentors have been unable to visit Ben or maintain those important relationships. Over time, he is losing these vital connections. Because safety and security are already addressed through the visitor application and approval process, restrictive visitor lists are unjustified.
Next, I would like to address the problematic and unnecessary requirement that visits be scheduled 24 hours in advance. This practice has prevented loved ones from visiting simply because they could not plan ahead. Families need the flexibility to visit without advance notice because life circumstances can change quickly.
The reasons for requiring advance scheduling are not supported by data. Since I began visiting Old Colony, I have never seen overcrowding in the visitation rooms. Additionally, the Department has not shown how advanced scheduling would improve safety or security at a facility. The stated rationale for requiring visits to be scheduled in advance is unsupported and appears arbitrary.
I strongly urge the Department not to amend this regulation to conform to current restrictive practices. Instead, the Department should revise its practices to better align with its stated goals of providing care and appropriate programming that prepares individuals for successful reentry into the community. Codifying visitation restrictions is inconsistent with the Department’s mission and goals and is harmful to incarcerated individuals.
30 Email
From: James Pingeon
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 4:33 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: PLS Comments on Proposed Visitation Regulations.
Attach: PLS Testimony on Proposed Department of Correction Visitation Regulations
June 11.pd
Michelle,
I am attaching the PLS comments on the proposed regulations. Please let me know if there is any issue.
Thanks very much!
Jim Pingeon
Attachment:
PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES
OF MASSACHUSETTS
www.plsma.org
Testimony of Prisoners' Legal Services Regarding Proposed Revisions to Department of Correction Visitation Regulations
Thank you for the opportunity today to speak regarding the changes proposed to the Department of Corrections' (DOC) visitation regulations. Prisoners' Legal Se1vices (PLS) would like to take this opportunity to address the critical need to remove the severe and unreasonable limitations on visitation that we submit violate Massachusetts law and are inconsistent with sound conectional practice.
The Importance of Visitation
Prison visitation is of critical importance to help prisoners maintain vital community connections. A substantial body of research shows that maintaining family and community contact during incarceration has a pro-social impact, alleviating stress, strengthening family and community bonds, increasing optimism about the future, and improving prisoners' attitudes towards the prison system and staff. Greater visitation decreases institutional misconduct and lowers the risk of recidivism, thereby enhancing prison security and increasing overall public safety.1 For example, the Ohio Department of Correction conducted a five year study on visitation, finding that the amount of visitation a prisoner received was associated with fewer rules violations.2 Conversely, when Travis County, TX, eliminated in person visitation, there was a substantial increase in disciplinary infractions, including a 54% increase in disciplina1y cases for possession of contraband.3 Research farther suggests that the more unique visitors a prisoner has, the greater the positive impact.4
The value of visitation is universally recognized, including by DOC itself. Last year· Commissioner Jenkins stated that .:.'..maintaining and fostering connections between folks who are in our care and their loved ones on the outside is probably the most impo1iant rehabilitative factor for successful reentry."
The Drastic Decline in Visitation.
The proposed revisions to DOC’s visitation regulations reflect the opposite of a genuine commitment to visitation. Rather, the principal purpose of the proposed regulations appears to be to codify existing barriers to visitation that have created a needlessly hostile visitation environment that has driven the number of visits to historic lows. In 2017, the year before DOC transformed its visitation practices by implementing the current regulations, there were approximately 125,000 visits to DOC prisons (not including attorneys, volunteers, and clergy). In the first year after the regulations went into effect, the number dropped to about 92,000 visits. Since then, as DOC has continued to implement a range of increasingly restrictive visitation policies, the number of visits has continued to plummet, reaching only 46, 221 in 2024 and 42,853 in 2025. There are now only about 1/3 as many visits in the DOC than there were before the regulations and restrictive policies went into effect.
The dramatic decline in visitation calls for a fundamentally different approach, one that is focused on reducing unnecessary barriers to visitation and restoring the family and community connections that are essential to rehabilitation, institutional stability, and public safety.
PLS therefore urges the DOC to revise the regulations in the following areas.
The Pre-Approval Requirement.
In PLS’ view, the DOC should follow the example of Virginia, which recently eliminated the pre-approval requirement in an effort to make the visitation process easier. Visitors are no longer required to be on a pre-approved list for in-person visitation, though all standard background check and behavior requirements still apply. Other states, most notably including New York, also do not have a pre-approval process.
PLS recognizes, however, that most states do have a pre-approval system and DOC is not likely to return to its former policy. In principle, a pre-approval system could be designed to facilitate visitation, reduce delays at the institution, and permit DOC to address genuine institutional security concerns in an orderly and minimally intrusive manner. The process created by DOC, however, does not do that. It is irrational, overly invasive and burdensome, and functions as yet another barrier to visitation, rather than as a reasonable administrative mechanism for managing it.
The burden imposed by the pre-approval process is not merely technical. It also has a significant privacy dimension. Visitors may be reluctant to disclose personal information to the Department of Correction if they do not know why the information is being requested, who will have access to it, how it will be stored, how long it will be retained, or what safeguards exist to protect it. For many prospective visitors, particularly family members who are already navigating a difficult and emotionally charged process, the concern is not abstract. They may be willing to provide the limited information necessary to verify identity, but they may reasonably object to broader disclosures that are not plainly tied to approval for visitation. That uncertainty can itself deter visitation. People should not be placed in the position of wondering whether their personal information will be adequately protected simply because they want to see a loved one.
PLS suppo1is DOC's proposed creation of an automated pre-approval application process that can be filled out online. Almost all correctional systems now make applications available in this fashion, in addition to also allowing paper applications for people who do not have computer access. Such systems have obvious advantages, including better protection of privacy and reducing mistakes in the application.
Visitors should not be required to provide more personal info1mation than is reasonably necessary. A screening system that is too broad, too intrusive, or too intimidating does not advance institutional safety but risks discouraging lawful visitation and unde1mining the rehabilitative value of maintaining relationships with the outside community. Typically, other states ask for considerably less information than the DOC demands. See, e.g. Maine, (available at bttps:/twww.maioe,goy!correctjons/sjtes/maioe,gov.correctioosmLes/iolioe-files/visitor%2oapplicatioo.pdf); Oregon (available at https://odoc.wufoo.com/forms/visiting-applicatjon/l. PLS therefore urges DOC to narrow the pre-approval process to the minimum information necessa1y for a reasonable background check to ensure that the process does not deter visitation by making prospective visitors fear for the privacy and security of their personal information.
The Cap on the Number of Visitors
The proposed regulations continue to place a cap on the number of visitors that each prisoner may receive, although they raise the cap from 8 visitors to 12 in medium and maximum security facilities and from 10 to15 in minimum security.
Even with the proposed increase in the cap DOC will still be one of the most restrictive states in the country. Many states have no cap at all, including California, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, No1th Dakota, Oregon, and Washington. Other states have caps larger than Massachusetts, including Arizonia (20), Arkansas (20), Federal Bureau of Prisons (10 plus unlimited family), Illinois (30), Minnesota (24), Montana (24), New Hampshire (20 plus unlimited family), Michigan (10 plus unlimited family), Montana (24), Pennsylvania (50).
Caps punish prisoners who have maintained robust community connections vital to rehabilitation and re-entry and bar numerous visitors without any cause to believe they have any relationship to introducing contraband into DOC facilities. The caps force incarcerated individuals to pick and choose which friends or relatives they will put on their list. This causes significant stress and hurt feelings. People ask why is he on your list and not me.
PLS has spoken to many individuals who have fewer visits than they did in the past because of the cap. A significant number would have more than 15 people on their visiting list if they could. This forces them to rotate visitors, periodically removing one person from the list and adding someone else. This not only creates tension among visitors who are told by DOC that the incarcerated person no longer wants to see them. If the prisoner wants to add the person back again later, they have to start the whole application process from the beginning. This wastes eve1yone's time, including the time of correctional staff who must process applications.
DOC has provided no evidence that the caps have had any effect on decreasing the introduction of contraband. There is no reason to think that individuals who have strong community ties are any more likely than individuals who have fewer community ties to introduce drug contraband into DOC facilities. In the FY2019, 2020, and 2021 budgets, the Legislature required DOC to submit reports on visitation that included "a discussion of whether the visitor approval process established in 103 CMR 483.10 has had a demonstrable effect on the supply of contraband in each facility." Despite the legislative mandate, DOC did not address that question. And DOC officials have acknowledged that they simply do not know if the restrictions have reduced contraband.
Limits on how often Visitor Lists Can Be Updated
The proposed regulations would permit incarcerated individuals to update their visitor lists only three times per calendar year during the first two weeks of March, July, and November. Even if an individual has fewer pre-approved visitors than the cap allows, he may not add a new person to his list except during the period when the window is open. This means a loved one can only apply eve1y four months. And since the proposed regulation gives DOC 20 business days to approve the application, a family member may have to wait almost five months before she can actually go into the prison for a visit.
The only justification DOC has given for this limit is that it would be too "administratively burdensome" and "too much work" to allow individuals to update their visitor list more frequently. DOC has a responsibility to balance its administrative needs against the critical impo1iance of visitation. Restricting updates inappropriately puts DOC's personal convenience ahead of rehabilitation and public safety.
Consistent with the practice in most other states, PLS recommends that individuals be allowed to update their visitor list at any time. See, e.g. Pennsylvania www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/cor/documents/about-us/doc-policies/812-inmate-Yisitiog-prjyjleges,pdf; Oregon https:Usecure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisiooBules.actioo?selectedDivisioo=960
Tiered Caps
The proposed regulations continue the practice of tiering caps on the number of unique visitors by security level. DOC has asse1ied that a higher cap for lower-security prisoners encourages positive behavior and motivates incarcerated people to seek transfer to lower-security prisons with a more generous visitation cap. Restricting visitation as a mechanism to promote good behavior makes little sense when evidence shows that visitation itself promotes good behavior. In addition, many prisoners in DOC custody are subject to mandat01y classification oven-ides that prevent them from stepping down to lower security, regardless of positive behavior. Further, as a result of the tiered cap, prisoners moved from minimum to medium security may be required to remove three previously approved visitors from their visiting list even if those visitors have visited them for years without any problem or disruption to institutional security.
The Advanced Scheduling Requirement
The proposed regulations would codify DOC’s present policy of requiring visitors to make an appointment before visiting. Since the introduction of the scheduling requirement, spontaneous visits are no longer allowed. This means that a friend or family member who might unexpectedly learn they had time to visit a loved one is no longer able to do so. The 24 hour advance notice requirement also interferes with visits. For example, a person who learns on Friday evening that they could visit on a Monday would not be able to do so.
If a scheduled visitor has to cancel, DOC does not allow the prisoner to substitute another visitor from his approved list. For example, we spoke to an incarcerated person whose father scheduled a visit for a Sunday but got sick and could not come. He would have liked to have his mother take his father’s visiting slot but this was denied because substitutions are not allowed.
Visitors who show up at the facility without an appointment are denied visitation even if they are on the prisoner’s approved visitor list and the visiting room is not full. For example, one individual reported that his uncle drove up from Connecticut for a visit but was turned away because he didn’t have an appointment even though the visiting room was not crowded. If a visitor is late for the appointment, DOC may forfeit the visit even if there is space in the visiting room. There is no reason to deny entry to someone who arrives without a pre-scheduled appointment if, as is often the case, there is space in the visiting room.
Visitors experience significant difficulty making appointments since institutional staff often do not answer the telephone. Visitors have to call many times before they connect with a person who can schedule the visit. Many just give up. Staff who do answer the phones sometimes fail to record the appointment. As a result, visitors have shown up at the prison only to be told that they do not have an appointment. Visitors who complain are told they should have called the institution to confirm the appointment although that requirement is not in any DOC policy. Recently, many people were unable to schedule visits because MCI Norfolk changed the call-in number without giving notice of the new number.
Some visitors have work schedules that make it very difficult for them to call to make an appointment during the limited hours when the phone line is supposed to be open. Other visitors have busy lives and sometimes forget to schedule an appointment. Prisoners report that they regularly call their visitors to remind them to schedule an appointment, so they don’t miss the visit.
PLS strongly encourages DOC to establish an online system for scheduling visits. This is the practice in most jurisdictions that require visits to be scheduled in advance, and it would substantially reduce the administrative burdens associated with arranging visitation. If DOC sincerely wishes to remove unnecessary obstacles to visitation and address the significant logistical problems created by its current scheduling practices, it should implement a comparable system.
Visiting Room Conditions
Section 483.07(i), of the proposed regulations states that “incarcerated or civilly committed individuals and adult visitors shall sit across from one another, not side-by-side, at all medium-and maximum-security institutions.” This codifies the current practice of requiring incarcerated individuals and their visitors to sit across from one another in rows spaced approximately three to four feet apart. This arrangement has significantly impaired the quality of in-person visitation. It is particularly difficult for elderly people and those with hearing impairments to understand each other when they are so far apart in a noisy visiting room. If they lean forward to hear better, they are told they must sit with their back against the chair. Both incarcerated individuals and visitors report that the distance makes it necessary to speak loudly to be heard. This often makes the conversation audible to others in the same row. As one visitor put it to PLS, the new seating arrangement makes the visit feel “like talking to someone across the street,” rather than a personal conversation with her husband. The loss of privacy makes people reluctant to talk about personal matters and significantly diminishes the quality of the overall visiting experience.
DOC has also implemented new visiting room policies that limit touching between prisoners and their visitors, prohibiting previously permitted forms of nonsexual, commonly accepted forms of affection, such as holding hands, placing an arm around a loved one, or touching a visitor during conversation. The effects of this rule have been devastating.
One man told us that there is now “an invisible barrier” between him and his visitors, converting what is supposed to be a “contact” visit into a “contactless” one. He finds it hard to maintain the relationship when he and his visitor are “so near yet so far away,” and cannot even hold hands during emotional moments. Another woman reported that although she has visited her husband more than a thousand times without incident, she is no longer allowed even to hold hands with the man she has been married to for over 40 years. As a result, they often just sit in silence. Many others describe a decline in the quality of visits, noting that they can no longer join hands in prayer or offer physical comfort during difficult conversations. Because of this diminished experience, many friends and family members now visit less often, and when they do, they tend to stay for shorter periods.
Arbitrary Enforcement of the Dress Code
While PLS does not oppose the existence of a visitor dress code, we have interviewed dozens of incarcerated individuals and their visitors who report that DOC staff at all facilities enforce the dress code in an inconsistent, unpredictable, and arbitrary manner. This makes it difficult for visitors to conform their clothing to the dress code, resulting in the unnecessary denial of visits. To avoid being turned away, many visitors deliberately wear the same outfits or the same few outfits to every visit, yet even these precautions often fail as clothing previously deemed acceptable is later rejected without explanation. Often visitors will go to nearby stores to purchase new clothing in an attempt to satisfy the visitor processing officer. One woman shared that the local department store’s employees are so used to visitors coming in to buy new clothes that they advise these visitors to leave the tags on the clothes so that they can return them to the store after their visit.
Visitors also report being denied entry despite wearing modest clothing that plainly complies with the written policy. Some of these incidents reflect enforcement so arbitrary and unreasonable that visitors experience it as humiliating and cruel. For example, one woman was turned away because her baby was wearing a gray onesie and staff claimed that the dress code prohibited visitors from wearing gray clothing. Yet once inside the visiting room, the woman observed another visitor wearing a gray t-shirt without objection.
In addition to the arbitrary enforcement of dress code rules relating to clothing, the Department also applies its rules concerning hair in an inconsistent and discriminatory manner. The dress code states that “[h]airpieces (i.e., toupees, wigs, extensions, weaves) may be worn but must be searched.” In practice, however, visitors who wear protective or cultural hairstyles are subjected to inconsistent, intrusive, and often arbitrary enforcement of these rules, resulting in delays, denial of entry, and disparate treatment based on race and cultural expression. For example, some officers instruct visitors wearing wigs or weaves to remove them entirely, even when they are sewn or glued to the natural hair. Similarly, some officers demand that visitors remove protective hairstyles—such as braids, twists, or locks—that can take many hours to complete. Visitors who object or are unable to comply risk losing their visits. Consistent with the dress code, other officers simply require the visitor to run their fingers through their hair to confirm that no contraband is concealed.
Visitors also report that staff frequently speak to them in a rude, dismissive, and disrespectful manner when enforcing dress code requirements and other visiting room rules. These interactions are often humiliating and intimidating, leaving visitors feeling unwelcome and discouraging future visits. The frequency of incidents of arbitrary application of the dress code strongly suggests that DOC has a very serious problem with its implementation. DOC needs to establish clear, fair, and consistent standards governing its enforcement.
Barring Visitor from Visiting More than One Visitor in DOC Custody
The proposed revision of 103 CMR 483 continues the rule prohibiting a person from visiting more than one incarcerated person within the Massachusetts DOC. It ignores entirely the importance of extended families, friends, mentors and community connections. For example, PLS spoke to one woman who had to choose between visiting her father at NCCI-Gardner and her fiancé at MCI Norfolk. Although she applied for an exception to the rule, it was denied. PLS often hear from community members, such as former Partaker’s mentors, who wish to provide support to incarcerated individuals they have come to know, but are blocked from visiting more than one person.
Although the regulation does allow a person to visit two “immediate family,” many incarcerated individuals have large extended families who don’t qualify under DOC’s narrow definition of “immediate family.” This can weaken and sometimes sever relationships with relatives such as cousins, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles who would like to support the incarcerated individuals’ efforts at rehabilitation.
DOC has offered no justification for forcing such visitors to choose which incarcerated friend or relative they will visit. The regulatory provision is arbitrary and capricious and undermines DOC’s goal of using visitation to promote successful rehabilitation and reentry.
Substance Use Disorder in the DOC
PLS recognizes that substance use disorder is prevalent within DOC facilities and that reducing the introduction of contraband drugs presents a serious institutional challenge. As is true outside prison walls, substance use is a complex problem that requires comprehensive and evidence-based responses. Reasonable security measures may appropriately play a role in those efforts. Unreasonably restricting visitation, however, is not a rational or effective means of addressing substance use within correctional facilities.
It does not make sense to restrict visitation to reduce substance abuse when visitation is itself one of the most effective rehabilitation programs in DOC’s arsenal. Indeed, it is not surprising that the epidemic of illicit drug use has coincided with the dramatic decline in visitation. If DOC wishes to decrease substance use inside of its facilities, it should work to strengthen family connections by expanding opportunities for visitation, eliminating the unnecessary obstacles created by the regulations and making visiting conditions more natural and welcoming. Such steps are far more likely to reduce drug contraband than draconian visitation regulations that serve to isolate incarcerated individuals from family and support systems.
We thank you for your time and attention to our testimony today.
Prisoners’ Legal Services
June 11, 2026
31 Email
From: Rosa Aguirre
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 4:33 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC) Morello-Quinn, Kara (DOC)
Subject: 103 CMR 483: Visiting Procedures New Proposal
My name is Rosa Aguirre, I am writing In regards the proposed amendment to the Visiting Procedures. My main and only concern with the proposal is the advance scheduling of visits.
My work schedule makes it very difficult for me to to call to pre-schedule the visits, my other child's activities as well, I am not sure of the correct guidelines this would require but for me it causes an issue of time especially if the new process has time frames to call to schedule the visits, if I can't make those time frames it would be very discouraging. I currently see my son only Sundays evenings I've never had an issue with the facility or staff when visiting is in session.
They is my only concern regarding the new amendment proposal pre scheduling visit's, it would be very difficult for me time wise.
Thank you for taking the time out to read this, hopefully it resonates a bit, I appreciate your time. Sincerely,
Rosa Aguirre
32 Email
From: Nia Reid
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2026 5:06 PM
To: Dupuis-Clarke, Michele A. (DOC)
Subject: Written Testimony Opposing Proposed Changes to DOC Visiting Rules
I am writing to submit my formal testimony strongly opposing the Department of Corrections' proposed changes to the visiting rules. While maintaining safety is important, the proposed permanent restrictions place an undue, harmful burden on incarcerated individuals and their families. I urge the DOC to reconsider the following changes based on the significant negative impacts they will cause:
- Eliminating Children's Areas and Restricting Physical Touch
The proposed physical configuration, forcing visitors and incarcerated individuals to sit strictly across from each other, will effectively eliminate the dedicated children's visiting areas. Children need a welcoming, age-appropriate environment to interact with their parents. Furthermore, forcing families to sit across from one another severely restricts meaningful physical touch. Physical connection-such as a hug or holding a parent's hand-is vital for a child's psychological well-being and is crucial to maintaining the foundational bond between children and their incarcerated parents. - Space Inefficiencies and Reduced Capacity
Forcing people to sit directly across from each other fails to maximize the layout of visiting spaces. By implementing rigid seating arrangements rather than flexible, communal configurations, the DOC will drastically reduce the functional capacity of visiting rooms. This prevents visiting areas from being filled to their true capacity, ultimately limiting the number of families who can visit at any given time.
- Barriers of the Call-In Scheduling System
Permanently requiring families to call in advance to schedule visits creates massive, unnecessary barriers.
No Online System: In an era where digital scheduling is standard, forcing families to rely entirely on phone calls is antiquated and inefficient.
Work Schedule Conflicts: Phone lines are only open during standard workday hours. It is incredibly challenging and highly restrictive for working people who cannot constantly call and sit on hold during their shifts just to schedule a visit.
Long Hold Times: Families routinely face exhausting, hours-long wait times on hold just to get through to a staff member.
No Same-Day or Emergency Visits: This system completely eliminates the ability to schedule same-day visits or accommodate sudden, family-related emergencies.
- Excessive Visitor List Restrictions
The proposed rules continue to place strict caps on visitor lists. This inherently penalizes and restricts individuals with large or extended families. These caps are entirely unnecessary; every single visitor must already undergo rigorous, comprehensive screening protocols before entering the facility.
Restricting the list does not increase safety-it simply severs ties with supportive family networks.
- Burdensome Wait Times to Update Lists
Even when families attempt to follow the rules, the long wait times for processing and updating approved visitor lists are deeply problematic. Families are left in limbo for weeks or months, waiting for administrative approvals before they are permitted to see their loved ones.
Strong family and community connections have been shown to reduce recidivism and support successful reentry. Instead of fostering these connections, these proposed rules build higher walls between incarcerated individuals and their support systems.
I strongly urge the Department of Corrections to reject these proposed changes and instead work toward policies that prioritize family unity, efficiency, and human dignity.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this testimony.
Sincerely,
Nia Reid-Patterson