In August 2025, sheriffs did what they always do. They asked the Legislature to fill their budget deficits. This time the deficit was $121 million, twice what it had been previously. Perhaps it was their bad timing. Maybe it was their failure to consider that legislators were struggling to find ways to pay for big decreases in SNAP, MassHealth, school meals and more brought on by Trump’s strangulation of state funding. Was it their arrogance? Or did they ask because they always did and their supplemental requests passed without question. Whichever it was, this time they went too far. The response of House and Senate leadership must have shocked sheriffs. The answer from the Legislature was “no.”
On Oct. 10, 2025, Rep. Aaron Michlewitz, chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means, and Sen. Michael J. Rodrigues, chair of the Senate Committee on Ways and Means, issued the following statement: “Over the past few months, serious questions and concerns have been raised about the financial and operational integrity of our sheriffs’ offices across the Commonwealth. As we work to maintain fiscal stability, live within our means, and responsibly close the books on Fiscal Year 2025, it is clear that the Legislature must act to rein in questionable spending practices and restore public confidence in the sheriffs’ operations.”
Every year, the number of people incarcerated in jails/Houses of Correction (HOC) drops. None-the-less, each year budgets increase. In 2016 there were 10,363 people incarcerated with a cost of $619 million. In 2025 there were approximately 6,800 people incarcerated costing taxpayers $725,453,007.
Legislators never asked why until sheriffs finally asked for too much. And then, they quickly passed legislation calling on the inspector general to investigate sheriffs spending. On Feb. 27, “A Preliminary Review of Sheriffs’ Budgets and Expenditures Ending a Decades-Long Practice of Improper Deficit Spending and Overuse of Supplemental Funding” was released.
The IG found that there is no standard for accounting and reporting from sheriffs. And there is an expectation on the part of sheriffs that budget deficits will be filled by Supplemental budgets. “Some offices do better than others to limit their spending closer to the appropriated amount, while other sheriffs appear to see virtually no restriction to spend within their allotment.” There is no standard for programs. “In this thicket of legal authority, many sheriffs operate programs not seen in other offices and without a clear nexus to the core function of the sheriff: the operation of county correctional facilities.” Nor does the report include data on the number of staff/correctional offices to people incarcerated. (In some jails/HOCs the ratio is 1:1.) Going forward, legislators need to be careful that sheriffs don’t attempt to justify their bloated budgets on MAT and no cost calls. These are a fraction of their budgets.
Every sheriff is the king (or queen) of their own castle therefore, “The OIG also found that in recent years, 10 of the 14 sheriffs received extra pay that was not authorized by statute.” This in addition to their base pay of $191,000 a year.
Examples of spending to the number of people incarcerated:
Hampden County: Actual spending $144.1M. 1,088 people incarcerated, $132,432 per person in 2025.
Hampshire County: Actual spending $21.1M. 132 people incarcerated, $159,706 per person in 2025.
Franklin County: Actual spending $27.9M 176 people incarcerated, $158,336 per person in 2025.
Why have legislators never held sheriffs to account?
Unlike jails in most U.S. counties, taxpayers in Massachusetts have no control of their sheriff’s budgets. In 1997 most county governments were abolished, and the state took responsibility for jails/HOCs. Sheriffs are still elected by county voters; however, almost all funding for jails/HOCs comes directly from the state with no direct input from county residents. County taxpayers do not have any oversight of county jail budgets and county taxpayers do not vote on new jail construction or the cost of increased staffing. Although county voters do elect sheriffs, most people have little idea of what sheriffs do. In a 2022 ACLUM poll, 17% of respondents could name their sheriff, 41% of people did not know sheriffs were elected, 90% did not know the length of a sheriff’s term (6 years). Sheriffs rarely have any opposition. Some like former Sheriff Ashe in Hampden County served for 42 years and still sits on state commissions.
Sheriffs wield a lot of influence in their county and beyond. The primary reason is their huge budgets. In Franklin County, a county of 70,000 people, the sheriff’s budget is $27.9 million a year. This includes big payrolls for the county and directly impacts employees and also their spouses and children. All dependent on the jail. Sheriffs have a lot of purchasing power including food, vehicles, contractors, repairs, etc. And of course, they are one spoke in the criminal legal system wheel including guard’s unions, police and police unions, district attorneys and attorneys. Given their big budgets, the number of people they employ, their local purchasing power, and their impact in the criminal legal system, it isn’t surprising that legislators have a hands-off approach to what they do or don’t do.
Hopefully, the IG preliminary report is first step in what could be the beginning of needed transparency and accountability. The final report will tell us more when it is released on May 31. Will it be a wake-up call to legislators, or will it end up in the proverbial bottom drawer?
Lois Ahrens is the founder of The Real Cost of Prisons Project, a national organization based in Northampton.