SMOC’s Contract with the DOC Draws Fire

SMOC Housing Specialists have developed "creative housing search techniques" to address high-risk, difficult to place offender subgroups, for example arsonists and sex offenders.

In a front page article, the MetroWest Daily News revealed on Dec. 31 the existence of a secret contract between the South Middlesex Opportunity Council (SMOC) and the Department of Corrections to find housing for dangerous criminals who were drug users: "In its bid proposal, SMOC highlights some of the 'effective strategies' it has developed to help ex-offenders find housing. If an offender can relate his criminal history 'however extensive' to substance abuse, a landlord cannot deny him access to housing, according to the proposal. Substance abuse is considered a legal disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. SMOC Housing Specialists have also developed creative housing search techniques to address high-risk, difficult to place offender subgroups, for example arsonists and sex offenders."

According to the article, Framingham has not "become a haven for those who participate in the re-entry program. Since it began in 2003, only two people have been placed in Framingham out of more than 500 referrals, according SMOC. The Department of Correction put the number at three." According to a DOC spokesperson, "Framingham is not being inundated with inmates."

However, in a January 5 article, the MetroWest Daily News reported that the Framingham Police Department survey "aimed at finding out why there is an increasing number of the most dangerous sex offenders moving to town found that several came here even though they had no ties to community while others could not even be tracked down. At least four of the 19 Level 3 sex offenders at the time of the report had no connection to Framingham before their offenses, according to their interviews with police. Others lived here when they committed their crimes or had lived in Framingham previously. [...] Two sex offenders told police they were sent here by the state’s Parole Board when they were released from prison. Another said he came to Framingham on the train to stay at the shelter downtown because the Pine Street Inn in Boston was full." They reported on a man convicted of rape and abuse of a child who was living in Boston after his release from prison but "was sent to Framingham by the Parole Board after he violated his parole twice in Boston."

This is STEPPS' concern with this contract and SMOC's extensive "continuum of care" for their clients: even if the released inmates are not "placed" in Framingham, how many are subsequently attracted here by free lodging from SMOC, free food from the Salvation Army, and maybe free medical care from Great Brook Valley Health's proposed clinic? The key word there is "placed" -- remember, once they're placed, they fall off the radar as far as the state is concerned. What's to stop SMOC from "placing" sex offenders and arsonists in, say, Springfield, and then bringing them to Framingham for one of their drug treatment programs? And why should we believe that SMOC is not locating more of these high-risk here? After all, SMOC stated that they had "Housing Specialists have also developed creative housing search techniques to address high-risk, difficult to place offender subgroups, for example arsonists and sex offenders." (In other words, they have found landlords that do not require CORI checks, and who are presumably over insured.) Why should we believe that these landlords are not primarily in the Framingham area? SMOC, after all, has its headquarters here and the majority of its many real estate holdings here. They have long touted the benefits of having all their services in the same vicinity. Why should we believe them now when they suddenly say they aren't concentrating their new clients here? The people of Framingham are concerned with where the arsonists and sex offenders end up, not where they are "placed."

It's also worth noting that SMOC has long denied that their programs influence crime in Framingham and decried the characterizations of their clients as criminals. Now we have evidence of SMOC actively pursuing criminals as clients.

SMOC is a big business -- part of the "social service industry." SMOC is the biggest social service provider in the region at $50 million a year, so why were they interested in a small ($891,000 over three years) contract like this one? The answer is simple: this contract with the Department of Corrections is, for SMOC, a way to acquire new clients and therefore continue to grow. After all, once SMOC has found the drug addicted sex offenders housing, they can move them into other SMOC programs, getting them food, clothing, medical care, counseling, and drug treatment. That's where the real money will come in.

As for the contract itself, the most bothersome aspect is the secrecy. The DOC spokeswoman said in the article that "all the regulations pertaining to procurement and public advertising were adhered to." So how do we square that with the fact that Framingham Police Chief Steven Carl was never informed of the program! In the article, he "said he is concerned about the contract, which he learned about several weeks ago."

Obviously, the state's regulations pertaining to procurement and public advertising are inadequate if the Framingham police chief only learned about the DOC contracting with a Framingham company to place dangerous criminals two years later from a third party!

In the old days, the state provided services like this, and when it placed a program, there were public hearings and accountability. Now the state outsources these services, and obviously the accountability has been outsourced, as well.

Have a comment, correction, or suggestion? Write to the webmaster!