Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services - Study on Location of Individuals Prior to and Following Incarceration
Summary
HB22 requires the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to conduct an annual study, beginning October 1, 2026, on where people live before incarceration and where they are released after serving time in a state correctional facility. The department must report the results to the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, and the House Appropriations Committee. The study must use intake and release data to track county of residence before incarceration, county of release after incarceration, and the timing of any transfers between state facilities before release.
The bill also requires the department to compare how often individuals are released back to the same county where they lived before incarceration, the same county where conviction occurred, or the county where they were incarcerated at the time of release. The act takes effect October 1, 2025, and is codified in the Correctional Services Article as new Section 9-618. In practical terms, the bill creates an ongoing data-reporting requirement intended to give lawmakers a clearer picture of geographic patterns in incarceration and reentry across Maryland.
Impact
HB22 adds a new reporting mandate to Maryland law for the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, requiring recurring analysis of pre-incarceration residence and post-release location for people released from state correctional facilities. It does not change sentencing, release, or correctional placement rules directly, but it does impose an administrative data-collection and reporting obligation that will affect department operations and provide information to legislative committees overseeing corrections, budgeting, and appropriations.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House and Senate unanimously, with votes of 135-0 and 46-0, respectively. The absence of recorded committee testimony or opposition in the provided materials suggests general agreement that the study would be useful for policymaking and oversight.
Contention
No notable substantive opposition is reflected in the provided record. Because the bill is limited to a study and reporting requirement, any potential concerns would likely center on administrative burden, data quality, or privacy in tracking individuals’ residence and release locations, but those issues are not documented in the available transcripts or vote history. The unanimous votes indicate that any such concerns did not rise to the level of recorded contention.