HB1347 establishes a temporary, statewide Task Force to Study Postrelease Services and Requirements (branded “Bri’s Law”). The bill directs the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) Secretary to chair the group, requires DPSCS to provide staff, and sets a single deliverable: a report of findings and recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly by July 1, 2027.
The statute is procedural rather than prescriptive: it does not create new release rules or fund programs. Its importance comes from the institutional role it gives DPSCS and prosecutors to shape reentry policy recommendations in Maryland, and from the compressed timeline and two‑year sunset that define how quickly those recommendations must be developed and acted upon.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a temporary task force charged with studying every 'type of release from incarceration' in Maryland and the postrelease programs or requirements linked to each type; the task force must report recommendations by July 1, 2027. The Secretary of DPSCS chairs the panel, DPSCS provides staff, members receive no compensation but are eligible for travel reimbursement.
Who It Affects
DPSCS leadership and operations, Maryland State’s Attorneys’ Association leadership, members of the General Assembly appointed to the task force, and agencies and providers involved in reentry planning and supervision. Indirectly affects people released from incarceration and the courts or agencies that impose postrelease requirements.
Why It Matters
The task force consolidates a statewide review of release categories and postrelease programming under executive leadership — a likely first step toward statutory or administrative reforms. Because the bill does not appropriate funds and sunsets in two years, its influence will depend on the strength and focus of the report and the legislature’s willingness to act on its recommendations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB1347 sets up a time‑limited panel to take a statewide inventory of release types and the programs or legal requirements attached to each one, with the aim of identifying ways to reduce recidivism. The task force is small and institutional: two state senators and two delegates sit alongside the Secretary of DPSCS (who chairs) and the President of the Maryland State’s Attorneys’ Association.
DPSCS must supply the staff support needed for the work.
The statutory charge is narrow and outcome‑focused: study and then recommend. The bill requires the task force to examine 'each type of release from incarceration in the State' and, for each type, the postrelease programs or requirements intended to prevent reoffending.
It does not define 'types of release' or enumerate programs, leaving those definitional choices to the task force itself.Membership rules and administrative support shape how the work will be done. With the Secretary as chair and DPSCS providing staff, the executive branch controls logistics and the agenda‑setting capacity.
The inclusion of the State’s Attorneys’ Association gives prosecutors a formal seat at the table; the statute does not create voting seats for community providers, people with lived experience of release, parole board members, or local supervision agencies unless they are added informally by the named members.The task force must deliver a written report of findings and recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly by July 1, 2027. The act takes effect June 1, 2026, and explicitly sunsets on June 30, 2028.
The law contains no funding provisions and prohibits member compensation, although travel costs may be reimbursed under existing budget rules.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services serves as the chair of the task force and controls staffing via DPSCS.
Membership is six named seats: two state senators, two delegates, the DPSCS Secretary (or designee), and the President of the Maryland State’s Attorneys’ Association (or designee).
The task force must study 'each type of release from incarceration' and the postrelease programs or requirements associated with each, then issue recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly.
Deliverable is a single report due on or before July 1, 2027; the statute becomes effective June 1, 2026 and sunsets June 30, 2028.
Members receive no compensation from the State but may be reimbursed for travel expenses under the Standard State Travel Regulations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Establishes the Task Force
The bill formally creates the Task Force to Study Postrelease Services and Requirements. That statutory establishment gives the group legal standing to operate, collect data from state agencies as needed, and produce an official report to the Governor and legislature.
Defines membership
Lists six membership slots: two senators appointed by the Senate President, two delegates appointed by the House Speaker, the Secretary of DPSCS (or designee), and the President of the Maryland State’s Attorneys’ Association (or designee). The composition concentrates appointment power with legislative leaders and gives institutional seats to the executive corrections agency and prosecutors; the statute does not allocate seats to community providers, formerly incarcerated people, probation officers, or the Parole Commission.
Chair and staffing
Designates the DPSCS Secretary as chair and requires DPSCS to provide staff. In practice that means the department will control meeting schedules, data requests, and logistical support, which influences the task force’s ability to gather operational corrections data and to set the research agenda.
Member compensation and reimbursements
Prohibits compensation for task force members while authorizing reimbursement for travel under State travel rules and subject to budget availability. This keeps the panel informal and low‑cost on its face but signals that members must rely on their home agencies for time and other resources.
Scope, deliverable, and reporting deadline
Directs the task force to study every type of release from incarceration in Maryland and the postrelease programs and requirements intended to prevent recidivism; it must make recommendations based on those findings. The statute fixes the reporting deadline at July 1, 2027 and requires submission to the Governor and the General Assembly under the standard statute for reports to the legislature.
Effective date and sunset
Sets the effective date as June 1, 2026 and provides an explicit sunset so the act expires on June 30, 2028. The narrow lifespan makes the panel a time‑boxed vehicle for producing recommendations rather than a standing advisory body.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- People recently released from incarceration — the report could recommend program changes or supports (housing, employment services, treatment) that reduce barriers to reentry if policymakers act on the recommendations.
- Community reentry and service providers — a centralized study can identify program gaps and potentially steer state funding or referrals toward evidence‑based interventions.
- DPSCS leadership — the department gains both control of the study process and a platform to propose administrative or statutory reforms backed by an official report.
- State legislators — the task force delivers concrete recommendations that legislators can use to craft bills or appropriate funds in the next session.
- Maryland State’s Attorneys’ Association — as a named member, the association can influence any recommended changes to postrelease requirements or prosecutorial practices.
Who Bears the Cost
- DPSCS — responsible for providing staff support and absorbing the administrative burden unless specific funding is appropriated, increasing workload for corrections staff and analysts.
- State budget — travel reimbursements and any data collection costs are chargeable to the State budget if claimed; implementation of recommendations later would require additional appropriations.
- Local supervision and service providers — recommendations that change eligibility rules or supervision conditions could create unfunded operational burdens for probation offices, community providers, and local governments.
- Appointed legislators and association representatives — they must allocate time and possibly staff resources to participate without compensation, which can affect committee workloads and constituent services.
- Smaller stakeholders not on the task force (e.g., formerly incarcerated advocates) — they may bear advocacy and compliance costs if they are expected to engage the process without formal membership or budgeted support.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between producing a timely, actionable roadmap for improving reentry and the structural limits the bill creates: a small, institutionally‑dominated task force, no guaranteed funding, and a short timeframe that together make deep, community‑informed, and fully costed reforms difficult to produce. The bill solves the problem of coordinating a study quickly but raises the risk that the study’s output will either be politically palatable recommendations without implementation pathways or ambitious proposals the State cannot afford to enact.
The bill gives the task force a broad mandate to study 'each type of release' and the corresponding postrelease programs, but it leaves major definitional choices and the methodology to the panel without statutory guidance. That open mandate allows flexibility but risks inconsistent scope: the task force could focus narrowly on parole and supervised release or take on an expansive inventory that includes short jail stays, mandatory release, and civil commitment transitions.
How the group defines its universe will materially affect the recommendations it produces.
Membership and administrative control skew toward DPSCS and prosecutors while excluding named seats for core constituencies such as parole board members, probation agencies, community service providers, and people with lived experience of incarceration. Those absences create two implementation risks: recommendations may reflect institutional priorities rather than front‑line realities, and key actors who would implement changes may feel insufficiently consulted.
The compressed timeline and lack of an appropriation increase the chance that the final report will produce high‑level recommendations without costed, operational plans — leaving the legislature to choose between funding new programs or issuing aspirational reforms that are difficult to operationalize.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.