[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


             WOMEN AND GIRLS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 16, 2019

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-37

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
44-092                    WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                  
              
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
               MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              DOUG COLLINS, Georgia, Ranking 
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas                Member
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,          Wisconsin
    Georgia                          STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
KAREN BASS, California               JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana        KEN BUCK, Colorado
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
ERIC SWALWELL, California            MATT GAETZ, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          TOM McCLINTOCK, California
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
J. LUIS CORREA, California           GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              BEN CLINE, Virginia
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas

        PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
                BRENDAN BELAIR, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

                     KAREN BASS, California, Chair
                    VAL DEMINGS, Florida, Vice-Chair

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas, Ranking 
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                     Member
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 
CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana               Wisconsin
HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
TED LIEU, California                 TOM MCCLINTOCK, California
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania         DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida      GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
STEVEN COHEN, Tennessee              BEN CLINE, Virgina
                                     W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida

                   JOE GRAUPENSPERGER, Chief Counsel
                    JASON CERVENAK, Minority Counsel
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                             July 16, 2019

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Karen Bass, Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, 
  Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of California..     1
The Honorable John Ratcliffe, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee 
  on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from the State of 
  Texas..........................................................     3
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chairman of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     4

                               WITNESSES

Jesselyn McCurdy, Deputy Director, American Civil Liberties 
  Union, Washington, DC, Legislative Office
  Oral Testimony.................................................     6
  Prepared Statement.............................................     7
Cynthia Shank, Featured in HBO Documentary--The Sentence
  Oral Testimony.................................................    20
  Prepared Statement.............................................    21
Piper Kerman, Author, ``Orange Is the New Black''
  Oral Testimony.................................................    22
  Prepared Statement.............................................    24
Aleks Kajstura, Legal Director, Prison Policy Initiative
  2Oral Testimony................................................    29
  Prepared Statement.............................................    32
Patrice Lee Onwuka, Senior Policy Analyst, Independent Women's 
  Forum
  Oral Testimony.................................................    39
  Prepared Statement.............................................    40

          LETTER, MATERIAL, ARTICLES SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Letter submitted by the Honorable Theodore Deutch, a Member of 
  the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 
  from the State of Florida for the record.......................    64
Letter submitted by the Honorable Madeleine Dean, a Member of the 
  Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security from 
  the State of Pennsylvania for the record.......................    76

                                APPENDIX

Testimony submitted by Prison Fellowship for the record..........    86

 
             WOMEN AND GIRLS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, July 16, 2019

                        House of Representatives

        Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Karen Bass 
[chair of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Bass, Nadler, Jackson Lee, 
Demings, McBath, Deutch, Richmond, Jeffries, Cicilline, Lieu, 
Dean, Mucarsel-Powell, Cohen, Ratcliffe, Chabot, Steube, Lesko, 
Reschen-thaler, McClintock, and Cline.
    Staff Present: David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; Joe 
Graupen-Sperger, Chief Counsel; Milagros Cisneros, Detailee; 
Monalisa Dugue, Deputy Chief Counsel; Rachel Rossi, Counsel; 
Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member; Anthony Valdez, 
Intern; Michael Nevett, Intern; Jason Cervenak, Minority Senior 
Counsel; Andrea Woodard, Minority Professional Staff Member; 
and Erica Barker, Minority Clerk.
    Ms. Bass. The Committee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security will come to order. Without objection, the chair is 
authorized to declare recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.
    I welcome everyone to today's hearing on Women and Girls in 
the Criminal Justice system. I now recognize myself for an 
opening statement.
    I am very pleased that this Subcommittee is holding this 
hearing today. After decades of policies that led to mass 
incarceration, we are finally at a point of examining the 
policies and the consequences. What has been missing from the 
discussion of criminal justice reform is the special and 
specific impact the tough-on-crime era has had on women and 
children.
    Today's hearing begins a discussion about women in the 
criminal justice system. It is critical that we understand how 
and why women become involved in the system, what happens to 
them when they are incarcerated, and what their trajectory is 
once released. We need to examine the impact of the war on 
drug-related policies, that specifically targeted women in 
hopes of capturing men. What happens to families, and 
especially children, when women are incarcerated? We need to 
examine the special needs women have when they are 
incarcerated, what is different? What are is different? What 
happens to their children while they are in the system, and 
when they are released?
    For example, Federal law can lead to termination of 
parental rights if the child of an incarcerated woman remains 
in foster care beyond 18 months. Some States have even 
shortened the timeline to 6 or 12 months. If a woman receives a 
sentence of 5 years, why should she face losing her children 
forever to adoption? Examining pregnancy while incarcerated is 
the most obvious difference. Specifically, prisons and jails 
are not designed or equipped to deal with the issues are of 
pregnant women in custody.
    I would like to recognize now Charlotte Cook. Wave your 
hand, please. While in prison, she complained that she was 
pregnant. The medical staff at the prison insisted that it was 
just because she was fat and stressed out. After much 
persistence, a blood test ruled that she was, in fact, 
pregnant, although 6 weeks into her pregnancy without prenatal 
care. She had complications, and her son was born a preemie at 
4.5 pounds. Eighteen months later, he was diagnosed with severe 
autism.
    The health needs of women, regardless of pregnancy, is 
different, and all women should have access to appropriate 
medical care. That includes access to gynecological care and 
not just during the child-bearing years. So, what is to be 
done?
    Through this hearing we will learn the common reasons why 
women enter the criminal justice system. This testimony must 
inform our next steps on sentencing reform. The testimony of 
Ms. Kerman and Ms. Shank will help us determine whether it is 
time it to revisit our overly broad drug conspiracy laws, which 
tend to leave low-level offenders, commonly women, laden with 
the responsibility for actions they did not commit, or 
sometimes, didn't even know about.
    We must also consider methods of reviewing extremely long 
sentences, as the number of women serving life sentence is on 
the rise. One out of every 15 women in prison, nearly 7,000, is 
serving a life, or virtual life sentence. While 80 percent of 
women in the criminal justice system are mothers, these life 
sentences do not only affect the person incarcerated, but they 
also affect the children who lose a parent.
    Thus, the conversation of incarcerated women must include a 
conversation about their children. The Urban Institute's 
research shows that staying in touch promotes positive outcomes 
for both the children and their parents, which often reduces 
recidivism.
    Communities must also be part of the conversation. Teachers 
and staff should prioritize knowledge and sensitivity about 
issues children of an incarcerated parent face. Schools should 
spearhead efforts to meet the needs of children with 
incarcerated loved ones, and offer resources or clubs targeted 
towards students who have been affected by incarceration, 
including support groups, counseling, extracurricular 
activities, providing opportunities to process experiences 
through poetry, writing arts and journaling.
    Perhaps if we do this, we can reduce the statistic that 50 
percent of children who have a parent incarcerated wind up 
incarcerated later in life. Connections should be made with 
community programs and local service providers that serve 
families affected by incarceration for additional support.
    Finally, we cannot ignore the conditions of women in prison 
and the difficulties of their reentry back into communities 
after release. I hope to explore how we can improve the 
conditions of women incarcerated to ensure that their most 
basic needs are met, including the needs of incarcerated 
pregnant women. Any facility that incarcerates women must be 
held to minimal standards of care. Today, women will no longer 
be overlooked in the criminal justice conversation. We must 
have an overall approach to criminal justice reform that 
specifically considers women.
    I look forward to hearing the testimony of our panel of 
witnesses and the opportunity to discuss these issues. I now 
recognize the Ranking Member, Hon. Mr. Ratcliffe.
    Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Chair Bass. Thanks to each of our 
witnesses for being here today to discuss the impact of the 
criminal justice system on women and girls. To do that, I think 
it is crucial that we take a step back to first understand the 
importance of the criminal justice system in the first place. 
Law enforcement officers, men and women of all races and all 
backgrounds put their lives on the line everyday all around 
this country to protect our communities. They make these 
extraordinary sacrifices to ensure that children are safe from 
exploitation by sex offenders. They do that to keep women and 
girls safe from domestic abusers. They make these sacrifices to 
defend the weak and the vulnerable among us. Importantly, they 
also do it to uphold the Rule of law.
    We should all agree on these fundamental principles. As 
Members of Congress, our role is to ensure that Lady Justice is 
blind, and that bias has no place in our criminal justice 
system. As my good friend and the former chair of this 
subcommittee, Trey Gowdy, once said, we should strive for 
criminal justice system that is not just respected by the 
American people, but is worthy of their respect.
    As a former prosecutor, my role was to be a zealous 
advocate for the truth. And during that time, I encountered 
crimes committed that were shocking to my conscience and 
sickening to my soul. In those cases, enhanced sentences and 
mandatory minimums were fair and they were just. Crimes 
committed against children, the most innocent and the most 
vulnerable Members of our society, should stick with us, they 
should haunt us, and then they should spur us to take action.
    Much of the debate here in Congress has been about criminal 
justice reforms and the impact of mandatory minimums and how to 
reduce recidivism. We should be vigilant in determining the 
causes of increasing female incarceration rates in this 
country. We should be open to addressing, in a bipartisan 
fashion, the unique needs of women and girls in our criminal 
justice system.
    As Congress has debated criminal justice reform, many 
States have acted as laboratories of democracy, creating 
innovative ways to handle their unique challenges in providing 
Congress with a view of what works and what doesn't work. We 
can and we should learn from that.
    Let us not forget that even some so-called nonviolent 
offenses, there are victims too numerous to mention and 
unfortunately too easy for us to ignore. Drug traffickers that 
profit off the importation of deadly and illicit drugs, like 
heroin, methamphetamines and Fentanyl in our communities leave 
a trail of destruction in their wake. The race or gender of 
drug traffickers does not matter. What matters is that their 
victims come from all backgrounds and from all walks of life.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Bass. It is now my pleasure to recognize Chair of the 
full Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Nadler.
    Chairman Nadler. I thank the Crime Subcommittee chair, our 
colleague from California, Karen Bass, for holding this 
important hearing on the special issues related to women and 
girls in the criminal justice system. In recent years, there 
has been a growing consensus that our Nation's criminal justice 
system must be substantially reformed. One critical element of 
this national conversation that has been largely absent, 
however, is consideration of the unique experiences and needs 
of women and girls in the system, and our responsibility could 
develop creative ways to address those issues. It is 
particularly urgent that we do so, because women are the 
fastest growing segment of our Nation's incarcerated 
population. While recent efforts at reforming the criminal 
justice system are at least partly responsible the for slight 
reductions in the rate of incarceration overall, the proportion 
of incarcerated women is steadily rising. This disturbing trend 
must be examined.
    In addition, we still must consider whether the reforms 
already instituted across the country are appropriately 
designed to address the issues faced by women and girls in the 
criminal justice system. These issues are numerous and diverse, 
impacting all stages of the criminal justice system.
    One such injustice, for example, is the so-called 
girlfriend problem, where a woman in a relationship is held 
responsible through conspiracy charges for the entirety of a 
criminal scheme orchestrated by her partner, often involving 
drug distribution, in which the woman had minimal involvement. 
In such cases, the women may even receive a harsher sentence 
than her relationship partner who had the real role, because 
the more culpable partner is able to cut a deal for shorter 
sentence based on divulging information to prosecutors. The 
less culpable partner does it not have much of any useful 
information to divulge because she doesn't know any, and thus 
lacks the leverage to obtain a more favorable plea agreement.
    Addressing this unfair situation is important because the 
war on drugs appears to be a large driver of the incarceration 
rates of women, as illustrated by the fact that the proportion 
of women in prison for a drug offense has increased from 12 
percent in 1986, to 25 percent in more recent years.
    Another problem is the impact of pretrial custody on women. 
Over 60 percent of women who are incarcerated have not even 
been convicted of a crime, and yet, they are held in pretrial 
custody in jail. This is particularly disturbing because many 
of these women are the only providers for their children.
    A recent survey revealed that more than 150,000 children 
had a parent in jail, because the parent could not afford bail. 
Not because the parent presented a particular risk to the 
community or risk of not appearing at trial. That means 
children are impacted by pretrial detention in startling 
numbers. This problem is most often caused by pretrial 
incarceration by sole provider mothers. Clearly, we must take 
steps to address this crisis of vastly overused pretrial 
custody.
    We must also focus on unique inequities that women face 
while incarcerated. As a result of Subcommittee Chair Bass' 
leadership, Congress final passed legislation implementing 
reforms at the Federal level, that ban shackling during 
pregnancy and require the provision of feminine hygiene 
products in Federal prison. These provisions were enacted last 
year in the first setback with bipartisan support, including 
the efforts of our current Ranking Member of the committee, 
Doug Collins.
    Much more must be done to improve the conditions for women 
in Federal and State prisons and jails, and I hope this will 
also be a bipartisan priority. As this Committee develop plans 
to further reform our criminal justice system, it is clear that 
our efforts must be informed by the unique issues faced by 
women in that system. I appreciate the chair for holding this 
important hearing, which will assist us in this process. I look 
forward to hearing from our witnesses and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Ms. Bass. It is now my pleasure to introduce today's panel: 
Ms. Jesselyn McCurdy is Deputy Director at the Washington 
Legislative Office of the American Civil Liberties Union, where 
she represents the ACLU before Congress and the executive 
branch. She covers various criminal justice issues, including 
Federal sentencing, prison reform, drug policy and capital 
punishment. She previously served as the lead counsel with this 
Subcommittee on the historic Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which 
lowered the 100-to-1 disparity between crack and powder 
cocaine.
    Ms. Cindy Shank is a mother of three beautiful children, 
turned advocate for criminal justice reform following her time 
in prison. Ms. Shank's 15-year sentence under drug conspiracy 
laws was commuted by President Obama after she served 8 years 
in prison. Ms. Shank was featured in the HBO documentary, ``The 
Sentence.''
    Ms. Piper Kerman, author of ``Orange is the New Black,'' 
which about the 13 months Piper served at the Federal 
correction institution in Danbury, Connecticut. She is an 
advocate who teaches writing classes at two State prisons in 
Ohio, as an affiliate instructor with Oberlin University.
    Ms. Aleks Kajstura is the legal director for the Prison 
Policy Initiative and has played a central role in building 
Prison Policy Initiative campaign against prison 
gerrymandering, and led the organization's work on its second 
major issue, sentencing enhancement zones.
    Ms. Patrice Onwuka, a senior policy analyst at Independent 
Women's forum. We welcome our witnesses and thank them for 
participating in today's hearing. Please note that your written 
statement will be entered into the record in its entirety. 
Accordingly, I ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 
minutes. To help you stay within that time, there is a timing 
light on your table. When the light switches from green to 
yellow, you will have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When 
the light turns red, it signals that your 5 minutes expired. 
Before proceeding with testimony, I hereby remind each witness 
that all your written and oral statements made to the 
Subcommittee in connection with this hearing are subject to 
penalties of perjury.
    Ms. McCurdy.

                 TESTIMONY OF JESSELYN McCURDY

    Ms. McCurdy. Thank you, Chairwoman Bass. The American Civil 
Liberties Union would like to thank you and the Ranking Member 
Ratcliffe for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing on 
Women and Girls in the Criminal Justice System. Prison is a 
woman's issue. Lost in the sobering statistics on this 
country's prison population and the narrative surrounding mass 
incarceration is the degree to which women are ensnared in the 
criminal justice system.
    Over the past 30 years, the number of incarcerated women 
has grown exponentially. Again, women are the fastest growing 
segment of the prison population, increasing by 700 percent 
from 1980 to 2017, a rate twice that of men. Today, more than 
200,000 women are incarcerated in jails and prisons across this 
country. The majority of women in prison are incarcerated for 
low-level offenses, most often property and drug-related 
crimes. Even as the rate of incarceration for women has risen 
dramatically in recent years, the percentage of women sentenced 
for crimes involving violence has fallen.
    Much of the growth in the women's prison population over 
the past 30 years can be attributed to the war on drugs. From 
1988 to 1999, the number of women in State facilities for drug 
offenses grew by 888 percent. Drug and property offenses are 
often fueled by conditions of poverty, addiction, and untreated 
mental health issues, which is experienced by many women 
cycling through the criminal justice system.
    In addition to poverty, what often lands women in prison is 
their history of physical and sexual abuse, high rates of HIV, 
and substance abuse problems. When they participate in more 
serious crimes, including serious drug crimes and robbery, 
women are minor accomplices. When women commit homicide, they 
often do so to protect themselves from men who have abused 
them. Women of color are disproportionately represented in the 
population incarcerated women. In 2014, Black women were more 
than twice, and Latino women were 20 percent more likely than 
White women to be incarcerated. Although the racial disparities 
among incarcerated women have narrowed over the past 15 years, 
the legacy of the disparity remains. Girls are more likely than 
boys to be in the juvenile facilities, due to low-level status 
offenses, or technical violations, and are far less likely to 
be detained for violent offenses.
    Women make up approximately 7 percent of the Federal prison 
population. Almost 13,00 women compared to 1980 when there were 
13,000 women in both State and Federal prisons combined. More 
than 70 percent of the women sentenced in 2017 in the Federal 
system were convicted of drug trafficking, fraud, or 
immigration offenses.
    In the same year, 68 percent of females sentenced had 
little or no prior criminal history. Furthermore, women 
frequently end up in Federal prison due to Federal drug 
conspiracy laws. Too often, Federal drug conspiracy laws 
disproportionately punish those who unwittingly and unknowingly 
find themselves caught in the net of drug-related activity, 
even in a peripheral role.
    Women who are minimally involved in drug dealing but who 
have partners or family Members involved in the drug trade can 
be required to serve long sentences as a result of conspiracy. 
Some of these relationships are abusive, or coercive, or leave 
women vulnerable and with few options.
    Women of color often find themselves subject to prosecution 
based on relationships and associations, rather than their own 
personal conduct. Adding to the burden of women behind bars is 
the majority of women in prison are mothers. Since 1991, the 
number of children with a mother in prison has grown 131 
percent. The majority of these women are both custodial parents 
and primary financial providers. Further, mothers behind bars 
are five times more likely than men to report that their 
children are in foster care or cared for by the State.
    The very existence of parental relationships can be 
endangered when a parent is incarcerated. Incarcerated parents 
who have not abused or neglected their children are far 
likelier to lose their parental rights permanently than a 
nonincarcerated parent who has assaulted their child.
    Women are the fastest growing population in the U.S., 
leaving far too many children and families without a mother, 
despite the fact she is often their primary caregiver. Until we 
recognize the unique circumstances, needs, and consequences 
associated with women who come in contact with the criminal 
legal system, we will never truly address this Nation's mass 
incarceration problem.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. McCurdy follows:]

                    STATEMENT OF MS. McCURDY

                        Introduction\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Special thanks to Lauren Kuhlik Equal Justice Works Fellow, 
Sponsored by Crowell & Moring for drafting portions of this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would like to 
thank Crime Subcommittee Chairwoman Karen Bass and Ranking 
Member John Ratcliffe for the opportunity to testify before the 
House Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, and Homeland Security during this hearing on Women 
and Girls in the Criminal Justice System.
    For nearly 100 years, the ACLU has been our nation's 
guardian of liberty, working in courts, legislatures and 
communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and 
liberties that the Constitution and the law of the United 
States guarantee to everyone in the country. With more than 
four million Members, activists, and supporters, the ACLU is a 
nationwide organization that fights tirelessly in all 50 
states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, for the principle that 
every individual's rights must be protected equally under the 
law, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, 
gender identity or expression, disability, national origin, or 
record of arrest or conviction. The ACLU advances equality 
through litigation and policy advocacy. The ACLU's priorities 
include defending the rights of immigrants, advocating for 
economic justice, and defending the housing rights of 
vulnerable populations.

                I. Trends Among Women in Prison

    Prison is a women's issue.\2\ Lost in the sobering 
statistics on the country's prison population and the narrative 
surrounding mass incarceration is the degree to which women are 
ensnared in the criminal justice system. Over the past thirty 
years, the number of incarcerated women has grown 
exponentially. Women are the fastest growing segment of the 
prison population, increasing by 700% from 1980 to 2017--a rate 
twice that of men.\3\ Recent statistics from the Federal Bureau 
of Justice Statistics (BJS) indicate that, of the estimated 6.9 
million persons under the supervision of adult correctional 
systems at year-end 2013, 18%, or 1.2 million, were women.\4\ 
Today, more than 200,000 women are incarcerated in jails and 
prisons nationwide.\5\ As of 2013, almost 60% of all women in 
correctional facilities were between the ages of 18 and 39.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Prisoners are nearly always housed according to their sex as 
assigned at birth. See Classification and Housing of Transgender 
Inmates in American Prisons, 127 Harv. L. Rev. 1746, 1748 (2014). 
``Women in prison'' refers to individuals housed in women's facilities, 
who may include transgender men and other gender non-conforming people; 
transgender women, who are often housed in male facilities, also face 
similar obstacles in prison arising from their own trauma histories and 
are equally entitled to appropriate gender-responsive programming.
    \3\ The Sentencing Project, Incarcerated Women and Girls (updated 
2019), available at https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/
incarcerated-women-and-girls/ [hereinafter Incarcerated Women]. https:/
/www.sentencingproject.org/publications/incarcerated-women-and-girls/.
    \4\ Lauren E. Glaze & Danielle Kaeble, Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, Correctional Populations in the United States, 2013 1, 6 
(2014), available at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus13.pdf 
[hereinafter BJS Statistics].
    \5\ Aleks Kajstura, Prison Policy Initiative, Women's Mass 
Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2018 (2018), available at https://
www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2018women.html; E. Ann Carson, Bureau 
of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2016 4 (2018), available at https:/
/www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p16.pdf; Zhen Zeng, Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, Jail Inmates in 2016 9 (2018), available at https://
www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ji16.pdf.
    \6\ E. Ann Carson, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2013 
8 (2014), available athttp://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf 
[hereinafter Prisoners in 2013].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The majority of women are incarcerated for low-level 
offenses, most often property and drug-related crimes.\7\ Even 
as the rate of imprisonment for women has risen dramatically in 
recent years, the percentage of women sentenced for crimes 
involving violence has fallen.\8\ Much of the growth in the 
women's prison population over the past thirty years can be 
attributed to the ``War on Drugs.'' From 1988 to 1999, the 
number of women in State facilities for drug offenses grew by 
888%.\9\ In New York for example, drug offenses accounted for 
91% of the increase in the number of women sentenced to prison 
between 1986 and 1995.\10\ This legacy has continued, and, at 
the end of 2012, a higher percentage of incarcerated women than 
men are serving time for drug offenses.\11\ Drug and property 
offenses are often fueled by conditions of poverty, addiction, 
and untreated mental health issues, which is experienced by 
many of the women cycling through the criminal justice 
system.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Id. at 15. In 2013, approximately 63% of women in prison were 
incarcerated for non-violent offenses. Id.
    \8\ In the late 1970s, the rate of imprisonment for women was 10 
per 100,000 in the State prison system, 49% of whom were sentenced for 
violent crimes. Natasha A. Frost et al., Institute on Women and 
Criminal Justice, Hard Hit: The Growth in the Imprisonment of Women, 
1977-2004 7, 10 (2006), available at http://csdp.org/research/
HardHitReport4.pdf [hereinafter Hard Hit]. By 2011, the imprisonment 
rate had risen to 65 per 100,000; however, as of 2012, approximately 
37% of women in State prisons were sentenced for violent crimes. See 
Prisoners in 2013, supra note 5, at 6, 15.
    \9\ Leonora Lapidus et al., Caught in the Net: The Impact of Drug 
Policies on Women and Families 16 (2005), available at https://
www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_
document/asset_upload_file431_23513.pdf.
    \10\ Hard Hit, supra note 6, at 24.
    \11\ BJS Statistics, supra note 3, at 15.
    \12\ ACLU of Pennsylvania, Reproductive Health Locked Up: An 
Examination of Pennsylvania Jail Policies 2 (2012), available at http:/
/www.aclupa.org/download_file/view_inline/756/484/ [hereinafter 
Reproductive Health Locked Up].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Women are more likely than men to commit crimes because of 
poverty. Women represent a disproportionate number of people 
arrested for and convicted of property crimes such as fraud, 
forgery, and embezzlement.\13\ When they participate in more 
serious crimes, including serious drug crimes and robbery, 
women are generally not principals of the crime, but rather are 
minor accomplices.\14\ When women commit homicide, they often 
do so to protect themselves from men who have abused them.\15\ 
Thus, a man and a woman convicted of the same crime and given 
the same sentence may have been treated unequally by the 
system. Women's sentences are often disproportionate to their 
crimes and often do not take into consideration these 
mitigating factors.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Federal Bureau of Investigations, Arrests by Sex, 2017 (2018), 
available at https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-
u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/table-42.
    \14\ Darrell Steffensmeir & Emilie Allan, Gender and Crime-
Differences Between MAle and Female Offending Patterns (2002), 
available at http://law.jrank.org/pages/1250/Gender-Crime-Differences-
between-male-female-offending-patterns.html; see also Myrna S. Raeder, 
Gender-Related Issues in a Post-Booker Federal Guidelines World, 37 
McGeorge L. Rev. 691, 726-31 (2006) (explaining the ``girlfriend 
problem,'' which forces female romantic partners of male drug offenders 
to decide between leaving those partners--and the security they 
provide--and participating either actively or passively in their 
crimes).
    \15\ Meda Chesney-Lind, Women and the Criminal Justice System: 
Gender Matters 3, available at https://www.gvsu.edu/cms4/asset/
903124DF-BD7F-3286-FE3330AA44F994DE/women_ 
and_the_criminal_justice_system_gender_matters.pdf#page=3.
    \16\ See generally Raeder, supra note 119 (arguing that defense 
counsel and judges should do more to take women's backgrounds into 
consideration during sentencing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Women of color are disproportionately represented in the 
population of incarcerated women. In 2014, Black women were 
more than twice as likely as White women to be incarcerated and 
Latina women were 20% more likely to be incarcerated than White 
women.\17\ Although the racial disparity among incarcerated 
women has narrowed in the past fifteen years--the rate of 
incarceration for Black women in prison declined by 30% between 
2000 and 2009--the legacy of disparity remains.\18\ Among women 
ages 18-19, the results were particularly pronounced--Black 
women were almost five times more likely than White women of 
the same age to be incarcerated.\19\ Latina women were also 
incarcerated at a disproportionate rate.\20\ Although Black 
children make up only 14% of all youth under age 18, 34% of 
girls incarcerated in youth facilities are Black; similarly, 
Native American youth make up only 1% of all youth but 
represent 3% of girls incarcerated in juvenile facilities.\21\ 
Girls are more likely than boys to be in juvenile facilities 
due to low-level status offenses or technical violations and 
are far less likely to be detained for violent offenses.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Incarcerated Women, supra note 2, at 2.
    \18\ See Marc Mauer, The Sentencing Project, The Changing Racial 
Dynamics of Women's Incarceration 1 (2013), available at http://
sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/
rd_Changing%20Racial%20Dynamics%202013.pdf.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ Wendy Sawyer, Prison Policy Initiative, Youth Confinement: The 
Whole Pie (2018), available athttps://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/
youth2018.html.
    \22\ Offense Profile of Committed Residents by Sex and Race/
Ethnicity for United States, 2015, Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Protection (2014), https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/
asp/Offense_Committed.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                II. Women in the Federal Prison

            A. Mandatory Minimums and Federal Crimes

    The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA) is the framework 
for the current federal sentencing system. In an effort to 
increase uniformity and reduce sentencing disparity, the SRA 
eliminated indeterminate sentencing (i.e., federal parole) and 
established the U.S. Sentencing Commission (Sentencing 
Commission) which led to the creation of the Federal Sentencing 
Guidelines (Guidelines).\23\ In 1986, not long after the SRA 
was enacted, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act (ADAA) established 
mandatory minimum sentences for federal drug crimes.\24\ The 
ADAA and other laws pass after 1986 included long sentences for 
many drug offenses based on the drug type and quantity, not the 
role the person played in a drug conspiracy.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ CCTF, Transforming Prisons, Restoring Lives: Final 
Recommendations of the CCTF 5 (Jan. 2016), https://www.urban.org/sites/
default/files/publication/77101/2000589-Transforming-Prisons-Restoring-
Lives.pdf.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are only two options judges have to reduce mandatory 
sentences for people convicted of drug crimes. These options 
occur when:

      An individual cooperates or provides substantial 
assistance to prosecutors investigating related offense; or
      A person qualifies for the ``safety valve.'' The five 
part ``safety valve'' criteria is when an individual has: (1) No more 
than one criminal history point; (2) not been involved in violence or 
had a weapon; (3) not committed an offense involving serious bodily 
injury or death; (4) not played a leadership role; and (5) fully and 
truthful disclosed information.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Id.

    Furthermore, federal drug conspiracy laws result in long, 
harsh sentences for people who are not involved in crimes 
beyond their associations with intimate partners and family 
Members. According to Sec. 21 U.S.C. 841 and 21 U.S.C. 846, 
anyone who attempts or conspires to commit a drug offense will 
be subject to the same penalties as those for the actual 
offense.\27\ Too often, federal drug conspiracy laws 
disproportionately punish those who unwittingly or unknowingly 
find themselves caught in the net of drug-related activity, 
even in a peripheral role. Women who are minimally involved in 
drug dealing, but who have partners or family Members involved 
in the drug trade can be required to serve long sentences as a 
result of conspiracy laws. Some of these relationships are 
abusive or coercive and leave women vulnerable and with few 
options. Women of color often find themselves subject to 
prosecution based on their relationships and associations 
rather than their own personal conduct. Drug conspiracy laws 
have contributed to the recent explosion of drug convictions 
and incarceration rates for women in the federal system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ 21 U.S.C. 841 and 846.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One such story is that of Danielle Metz, a mother of two 
who received a triple life plus 20 years sentence for her 
involvement in her husband's cocaine distribution enterprise 
which was her first offense.

          ``Danielle was the youngest of nine children raised in New 
        Orleans and became involved with a drug dealer named Glenn when 
        she was 18. She recalls that Glenn, then 30, promised to care 
        for her and her baby. She says that she knew he was involved in 
        drug distribution and that she was not initially involved in 
        his activities. They married after they had a daughter 
        together, Gleneisha.
          Metz says her husband was very controlling and forbid her 
        from getting a job or leaving their home for more than an hour 
        at a time. According to Metz, he became physically and mentally 
        abusive after they married and made her feel subservient 
        because he paid the bills. She recalls that he later asked her 
        to ride with her aunt Angela, a petty drug dealer who had 
        become involved in Glenn's drug activities, to transport money 
        to Houston. Metz says she accompanied her aunt twice and 
        brought cocaine back to New Orleans on one of these occasions. 
        According to Metz, she also collected money from Western Union, 
        also at Glenn's request.
          In 1990, they moved to Las Vegas, separating her from her 
        family. According to Metz, Glenn struck her, causing her nose 
        to gush with blood, while they were visiting her sister in Los 
        Angeles. While returning to Las Vegas, Metz planned her escape. 
        The next day, before boarding a flight to New Orleans, where 
        her family still lived, Metz says she called Glenn to tell him 
        where she had left the car and that she was leaving him. Two 
        months later, she was arrested and indicted for participating 
        in a drug conspiracy with her estranged husband.
          Metz, then 26, was sentenced to three life without parole 
        sentences plus 20 years in 1993. It was her first conviction. 
        Metz was convicted largely on the basis of testimony from her 
        aunt Angela, who had earlier been arrested for an unrelated 
        drug charge and testified against Metz and her husband as part 
        of a plea deal. Metz says that she had no useful information 
        she could trade, the only way to win a sentence reduction under 
        federal mandatory sentencing.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ ACLU, A Living Death: Life without Parole for Nonviolent 
Offenses 45 (Nov. 2013), https://www.aclu.org/report/living-death-life-
without-parole-nonviolent-offenses.

    In 2016 after serving 23 years in federal prison, President 
Barack Obama granted Metz clemency. At the age of 50, Metz 
enrolled in school at Southern University of New Orleans and is 
studying to become a social worker. She recently made the 
dean's list with a 3.75 grade point average.
    Women, like Danielle, make up approximately 7% of the 
federal prison population.\29\ More than 70% of the women in 
federal custody in 2017 were sentenced for drug trafficking 
(37.2%), fraud (20.4%), or immigration (15.3%) offenses.\30\ 
60-eight percent (68.0%) of females sentenced to federal prison 
had little or no prior criminal history and only 3% had serious 
or significant criminal histories. Latina women made up 44% of 
women convicted for drug trafficking while White women were 35% 
and Black women made up almost 15%.\31\ Black and White women 
each made up 37% of those sentenced for fraud, with Latina 
women making up 20%. In 2017, almost 77% of females in the 
federal system were sentenced to prison, but 15% received a 
mandatory minimum sentence.\32\ However, the difference in the 
length of sentence between those who received mandatory 
sentences and those who did not is drastic. Women who were 
sentenced to mandatory minimum sentences received an average of 
75 months or over six years while those who did not were 
sentenced to an average of 19 months or a little over a year 
and a half.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Inmate Gender, Federal Bureau of Prisons (July 6, 2019), 
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender.jsp.
    \30\ U.S. Sentencing Comm'n., Quick Facts: Women in the Federal 
Offender Population 1 (2018), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/
pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Female_Offenders_FY17.pdf.
    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today, there are almost 13,000 women\34\ in Bureau of 
Prisons (BOP) facilities across the country compared to 1980, 
when there were 13,000 women in both State and federal 
prisons.\35\ Since that time, women in prison have increased by 
twice the rate of men incarcerated.\36\ Unfortunately, in 
addition to poverty, what often lands women in prison are their 
histories of physical and sexual abuse, high rates of HIV, and 
substance abuse problems.\37\ When women are incarcerated, 
their children and families are also impacted. Others, in 
particular, are an integral part of the family structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Trends in U.S. Corrections, The Sentencing Project at 4 (last 
updated June 2019).
    \35\ Id. at 4.
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    B. Conditions of Confinement for Women in Federal Prison

    In September of 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 
Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a report that 
evaluated the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) management of 
women in the agency's custody entitled Review of the Federal 
Bureau of Prisons' Management of Its Female Inmate 
Population.\38\ OIG examined BOP's capacity and efforts to 
address the unique needs of women in federal prisons through 
the agency's policies, programs, and decisions from FY 2012 
through FY 2016. The OIG evaluated how BOP's Women and Special 
Populations Branch and other relevant offices implemented 
pregnancy programs, gender-responsive trauma treatment and 
policies related to physical searches of female inmates as well 
as inmate access to feminine hygiene products. Finally, the OIG 
reviewed BOP's decision to convert its Danbury, Connecticut low 
security facility from a female to a male prison and how that 
affected women who had been housed at Danbury.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Review of the BOPs' Management of its Female Inmate 
Population, Office of the Inspector Gen. (September 2018), https://
oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/e1805.pdf/.
    \39\ Id. at 45 Appendix 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The OIG concluded that BOP had not been strategic in its 
management of females in its custody. They remended that BOP 
take supplemental steps to ensure that individual facilities 
are meeting the needs of females. The report found instances 
where BOP's programming and policies did not fully consider the 
needs of women inmates, thus making it hard for women to take 
advantage of important programs and supplies. The OIG concluded 
that BOP was following Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) 
standards and regulations, but the policies prohibiting cross 
gender searches were carried out inefficiently. Lastly, they 
determined the BOP's conversion of Danbury to a male prison had 
negatively affected some females who had been housed at the 
facility.

             III. Burdens of Mothers in Behind Bars

    The majority of women in prison are mothers. Since 1991, 
the number of children with a mother in prison has grown 
131%.\40\ In 2004, approximately 62% of women had minor 
children.\41\ The majority of these women were both custodial 
parents and primary financial providers. Mothers behind bars 
are likely to have lived in single-parent households and the 
overwhelming majority report that they were responsible for the 
daily care of their children. Unlike males, incarcerated women 
report that the other parent is not the caregiver for their 
children while they are incarcerated. Instead, a grandmother or 
other relative is the most likely caregiver for a woman's child 
or children. Further, 11% of mothers behind bars--five times 
more than men--report that their children are in foster care or 
otherwise cared for by the state.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Lauren E. Glaze & Laura M. Maruschak, Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children 2 (2010), 
available at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf.
    \41\ Id. at 3.
    \42\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since women are more likely than men to be the primary or 
sole caretaker of their children prior to incarceration,\43\ 
children and families are profoundly affected by the rising 
numbers of women sent to prison.\44\ Between 1991 and 2007, the 
number of children with a mother in prison more than 
doubled.\45\ About 62% of women in State prisons, and 56% of 
women in federal prison, have minor children.\46\ The very 
existence of the parental relationship can be endangered when a 
parent is incarcerated.\47\ Incarcerated parents who have not 
been accused of neglect or abuse are far likelier to lose their 
parental rights permanently than are non-incarcerated parents 
who have assaulted their children. Thousands of parents in the 
last decade have had their rights terminated solely on the 
basis of their incarceration.\48\ In addition to the 
devastating consequences of parental incarceration on families, 
children's future prospects also dim; children with mothers in 
custody are more likely to develop depression and anxiety, are 
at heightened risk of future substance abuse problems, and are 
more likely to become involved in the criminal justice 
system.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ In 2004, 64.2% of mothers in prison reported living with their 
minor children in the month prior to arrest or just prior to 
incarceration, compared to 46.5% of men. Further, 41.7% of mothers 
reported they were single parents in the month prior to arrest or just 
prior to incarceration. Nearly 11% of mothers in custody reported that 
their children were currently in foster care, compared to 2.2% of men. 
While 88.4% of men in prison reported their children were being cared 
for by another parent, only 37% of women in prison reported the same. 
Id. at 2, 4-5.
    \44\ Violence Against Women, supra note 112, at para. 49; Dorothy 
E. Roberts, Prison, Foster Care, and the Systemic Punishment of Black 
Mothers, 59 UCLA L. Rev. 1474, 1479-83 (2012) (describing how the 
increasing number of incarcerated Black mothers is destroying 
``critical family and community ties'').
    \45\ Glaze & Maruschak, supra note 129, at 2.
    \46\ Id.
    \47\ For an overview of how incarceration can lead to the 
termination of parental rights--especially of mothers--see Eli Hager & 
Anna Flagg, How Incarcerated Parents Are Losing Their Children Forever, 
The Marshall Project (Dec. 2, 2018), https://
www.themarshallproject.org/2018/12/03/how-incarcerated-parents-are-
losing-their-children-forever (noting that incarcerated parents who 
have never been accused of child neglect or abuse are more likely to 
have their rights terminated than non-incarcerated parents who have 
physically or sexually assaulted their children). See also Adoption and 
Safe Families Act of 1997 (``ASFA''), Pub. L. No. 105-89, 111 Stat. 
2115 (legislation incentivizing adoption of children in foster care in 
the name of finding a permanent home) (codified in scattered sections 
of title 42 of the United States Code); Deseriee A. Kennedy, Children, 
Parents & the State: The Construction of A New Family Ideology, 26 
Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. 78, 104-7 (2011) (describing and 
criticizing how ASFA in conjunction with State laws has increased 
terminations of parental rights due to incarceration for more than 15 
months); Violence Against Women, supra note 112, at para. 49 (noting 
the danger of ASFA leading to termination of parental rights of mothers 
who leave their children in foster care due to incarceration).
    \48\ See Hager & Flagg, supra note 136.
    \49\ Roberts, supra note 133, at 1481-2 (noting that ``[s]eparation 
from imprisoned parents has serious psychological consequences for 
children, including depression, anxiety, feelings of rejection, shame, 
anger, guilt, and problems in school''); The Rebecca Project for Human 
Rights & Nat'l. Women's Law Ctr., Mothers Behind Bars: A State-by-State 
Report Card and Analysis of Federal Policies on Conditions of 
Confinement for Pregnant and Parenting Women and the Effect on Their 
Children 9, 12-13 (2010), available at https://www.nwlc.org/sites/
default/files/pdfs/mothersbehindbars2010.pdf (noting the prevalence of 
``significant attachment disorders,'' substance abuse, sexual 
promiscuity, and criminal behavior among children affected by maternal 
incarceration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  IV. Needs of Women in Prison

                   A. Differing Health Needs

    Women in prison have medical and mental health histories 
and needs that differ from the nonincarcerated population as 
well as their male counterparts. Women in jails and prisons 
have significantly higher rates of both chronic conditions 
(which include cancer, diabetes, asthma and other conditions) 
and infectious diseases (which include tuberculosis and 
sexually transmitted infections) than do their male 
counterparts.\50\ Prison itself can contribute to health 
concerns; incarceration is directly linked to premature 
mortality for women, but not for men.\51\ Additionally, 
substance abuse issues and mental illness are more prevalent 
among incarcerated women. A staggering proportion of 
incarcerated women suffer from mental health problems. In 
federal facilities, more than 40% more women than men have been 
diagnosed with mental health conditions.\52\ Much higher 
numbers of women in State prisons and local jails are reported 
to suffer from mental health problems than similarly situated 
men.\53\ Women also report past physical or sexual abuse, as 
well as other traumas, at a higher rate than their male 
counterparts.\54\ In one BJS study, for example, 57% of women 
in State prison facilities, as compared with 16% of men, 
reported having been abused prior to admission.\55\ These 
numbers might be significant underestimates; for example, the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) relies on estimates that 
upwards of 90% of women entering prison have experienced 
trauma, most often sexual abuse.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Laura M. Maruschak, et al., Bureau of Justice Statistics, 
Medical Problems of State and Federal Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2011-
12 5 (2015), available at https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/
mpsfpji1112.pdf#page=5. However, women in prison are no longer more 
likely to be diagnosed with HIV than men in prison. Laura M. Maruschak 
& Jennifer Bronson, Bureau of Justice Statistics, HIV in Prisons, 
2015--Statistical Tables 4 (2017), available at https://www.bjs.gov/
content/pub/pdf/hivp15st.pdf.
    \51\ Michael Massoglia, et al., The relationship between 
incarceration and premature adult mortality: Gender specific evidence, 
46 Social Science Research 142, 150 (2014), available at https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6123019/ (finding that, after 
controlling for all known factors that could impact the outcome, 
incarceration led to increased risk of death for women; for men, 
socioeconomic factors explained the difference in premature mortality 
between those who had and had not been incarcerated).
    \52\ Doris J. James & Lauren E. Glaze, Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates 1, 4 
(2006), available at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf.
    \53\ Id.
    \54\ Caroline Wolf Harlow, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prior 
Abuse Reported by Inmates and Probationers 1 (1999), available at 
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/parip.pdf.
    \55\ Id. Additionally, in federal prisons, 39.9% of women reported 
past abuse, compared to 7.2% of men. In jails, 47.6% of women reported 
past abuse, compared to 12.9% of men. More than a third of women in 
State prisons or local jails reported being physically or sexually 
abused before the age of eighteen. Id.
    \56\ Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, 
Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Management of Its Female 
Inmate Population 6 (2018), available at https://oig.justice.gov/
reports/2018/e1805.pdf [hereinafter OIG Report].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because the great majority of people in prisons have always 
been men, corrections health care policies were created with 
the needs of men at the forefront, without regard for women's 
unique health needs. Despite the constitutional mandates of 
Estelle v. Gamble, which requires prisons to provide adequate 
medical care to the people in their custody,\57\ widespread 
deficiencies in appropriate healthcare standards for females 
continue to exist. These deficiencies are cast in no sharper 
relief than in the context of reproductive health care policies 
and practices for women in prison. Particularly given the 
demographic composition of incarcerated women,\58\ reproductive 
health care is one vital component in the provision of adequate 
access to health care for women in prison. In many core areas, 
the reproductive health services rendered to pregnant women are 
abysmally inadequate. Lawmakers and correctional facilities can 
ill-afford to continue to ignore the reproductive health care 
rights of incarcerated women. The public and our leaders must 
raise our voices to demand these critical rights for all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\ Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976).
    \58\ See Prisoners in 2013, supra note 5 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        B. Prenatal Care

    Approximately between four and five percent of women 
admitted into prisons and jails are pregnant at intake, though 
data on the actual number of pregnant women in prisons and 
jails remains elusive.\59\ As the number of incarcerated women 
increases, correctional institutions must increasingly face the 
task of caring for pregnant women in jails and prisons. They 
are increasingly responsible for providing prenatal medical 
treatment, caring for women who give birth behind bars, serving 
the needs of mothers and their children, and providing access 
to abortions for those who wish to terminate their pregnancies. 
Corrections facilities have repeatedly shown that they are 
either unable or unwilling to provide the level of care 
necessary to ensure the health and safety of pregnant women who 
are incarcerated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ Bureau of Justice Assistance, Best Practices in the Use of 
Restraints With Pregnant Women and Girls Under Correctional Custody 3 
(2014), available at https://www.nasmhpd.org/sites/default/files/
Best_Practices_Use_of_Restraints_Pregnant(2).pdf [hereinafter BJA Best 
Practices]; see also Victoria Law, Pregnant and Behind Bars: How the US 
Prison System Abuses Mothers-to-Be, The Guardian (Oct. 20, 2015), 
http://www. theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/20/pregnant-women-prison-
system-abuse-medical-neglect?
CMP=share_btn_tw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Little formal data exists about the quality of medical care 
provided to pregnant females.\60\ However, what reports do 
exist tend to indicate that prenatal care is lacking or 
completely absent in many cases.\61\ Lack of access to prenatal 
care is especially dangerous because most women have high-risk 
pregnancies and need special care to keep them and their 
children safe during and after pregnancy.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ See Law, supra note 27; The Rebecca Project for Human Rights & 
National Women's Law Center, Mother's Behind Bars 8 (2010), available 
at https://www.nwlc.org/sites/
default/files/pdfs/mothersbehindbars2010.pdf#page=8 (describing lack of 
formal policies related to prenatal care across the country).
    \61\ Barbara A. Hotelling, Perinatal Needs of Pregnant, 
Incarcerated Women, 17 J. of Perinatal Educ. 37, 37-42 (2008), 
available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2409166/pdf/
JPE170037.pdf.
    \62\ Id.

        One example is a former inmate at Wichita County Jail in 
        Wichita Falls, Texas, who brought suit against jail officials 
        and staff in May 2014 after she was forced to give birth in a 
        prison cell, ultimately resulting in the loss of her baby.\63\ 
        Nicole Guerrero was eight-and-a-half months pregnant when she 
        was admitted to the jail. According to her complaint, several 
        days later, Ms. Guerrero began experiencing lower back pain, 
        cramping, and vaginal discharge and bleeding. Over the course 
        of several hours, Ms. Guerrero experienced excruciating pain 
        while her repeated requests for help and medical attention were 
        ignored. Ms. Guerrero went into labor while locked in a cell. 
        She was aided by detention officers only in the final stages of 
        her delivery, and even then, no medical personnel assisted her. 
        The baby's umbilical cord was wrapped around her neck, and she 
        was dark purple in appearance and unresponsive. The detention 
        officer assisting Ms. Guerrero made no attempt to revive the 
        baby while awaiting emergency services. Her baby was pronounced 
        dead later that morning.\64\ Ms. Guerrero's lawsuit has since 
        been settled.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ See Complaint at 4-8, Guerrero v. Wichita Cty., No. 14-00058 
(N.D. Tex. May 21, 2014).
    \64\ See id.
    \65\ County Commissioners Approve Settlement in Nicole Guerrero v. 
Wichita County, Texomas (Dec. 7, 2015), https://
www.texomashomepage.com/news/local-news/county-commissioners-
approve-settlement-in-nicole-guerrero-vs-wichita-county/290456878.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  C. Shackling Pregnant Women

    In addition to failing to provide necessary care, prisons 
may also actively harm pregnant people by shackling them. 
Shackling pregnant women is a dangerous and inhumane practice 
and widely regarded as an assault on human dignity, as well as 
an unsafe medical practice. Although significant progress has 
been made to prohibit this practice in federal prisons, women 
in prisons across the country are still routinely shackled 
during pregnancy and childbirth.
    Shackling poses an unacceptable risk to the health of the 
pregnant woman. Freedom from physical restraints is especially 
critical during labor, delivery, and during postpartum 
recovery. Women often need to move around during labor, 
delivery and recovery, including moving their legs as part of 
the birthing process. Restraints on a pregnant woman can 
interfere with the medical staff's ability to appropriately 
assist in childbirth or to conduct sudden emergency 
procedures.\66\ Because shackling limits the ability of a woman 
to move during labor, she is left unable to adequately shift 
positions to manage the extreme pains of labor and childbirth. 
This limitation of movement during pregnancy and labor can also 
increase the risk of blood clots.\67\ Leg restraints may also 
cause severe cuts on women's ankles because of the strains 
associated with childbirth.\68\ Using restraints after delivery 
may prevent mothers from effectively healing.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\ American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Health 
Care for Pregnant and Postpartum Incarcerated Women and Adolescent 
Females 2-3 (2011), available at http://www.acog.org/-/media/Committee-
Opinions/Committee-on-Health-Care-for-Underserved-Women/
co511.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20151027T1653481414 [hereinafter ACOG, Health Care 
for Incarcerated Women].
    \67\ Id. at 3.
    \68\ Dana L. Sichel, Giving Birth in Shackles: A Constitutional and 
Human Rights Violation, 16 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol'y. & L. 223, 225 
(2007).
    \69\ Dana Sussman, Bound by Injustice: Challenging the Use of 
Shackles on Incarcerated Pregnant Women, 15 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 477, 
487 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, during all stages of pregnancy, shackling 
poses an unacceptable risk to the health and safety of the 
fetus and the life of a child. Pregnancy can create problems 
with balance that are exacerbated by shackling. Falls can 
injure not only the mother, but also the fetus.\70\ When 
restraints are used during labor, doctors are limited in how 
they can manipulate a mother for the safety of the unborn 
child. During the final stages of labor it is important for the 
physician to Act quickly to avoid potentially life-threatening 
emergencies for both the mother and the unborn child. Shackles 
severely limit such actions and as such pose a threat to the 
survival of the fetus. Doctors may not be able to perform 
emergency caesarean sections in time due to shackles.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\ Julie B. Ehrlich & Lynn M. Paltrow, Jailing Pregnant Women 
Raises Health Risks, Women's Enews (Sept. 20, 2006), https://
womensenews.org/2006/09/jailing-pregnant-women-raises-health-risks/.
    \71\ Sussman, supra note 47, at 487.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Among the states that have restricted shackling of pregnant 
females, none have documented instances of women in labor 
escaping or causing harm to themselves, the public, security 
guards, or medical staff. In most instances, armed corrections 
officers accompany shackled women into or around the delivery 
room. These officers can ensure the safety of the physicians, 
mothers and the newborn without the use of shackling 
restraints.\72\ Currently, twenty-two states--Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, 
Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 
Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 
Texas, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia and the District 
of Columbia, have laws prohibiting or restricting shackling 
pregnant women.\73\ The Federal Government has also codified a 
long-standing ban on shackling pregnant females in federal 
custody with the just enacted First Step Act.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\ See Chris DiNardo, Pregnancy in Confinement, Anti-Shackling 
Laws and the ``Extraordinary Circumstances'' Loophole, Duke J. L. & 
Gender Pol'y. 271, 281 (2018).
    \73\ See ARiz. Rev. Stat. Sec.  31-601; Cal. Penal Code Sec. Sec.  
3407, 3423; Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec.  17-1-113.7, 17-26-1104.7, 
19-2-924.7, 26-1-137; Del. Code Ann. Tit. 11, Sec.  6603; Fla. Stat. 
Sec.  944.241; Haw. Rev. Stat. Sec. 353-122; Idaho Code Ann. Sec.  20-
902; 55 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/3-15003.6; 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 125/
17.5; La. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec.  15:744.2-744.7; Me. Rev. Stat. 
Ann. tit. 30-a, Sec. Sec.  1581-83; Md. Code Ann., Corr. Servs. Sec.  
9-601; Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 127, Sec.  118, as amended by 2014 Mass. 
Acts Ch. 103; Minn. Stat. Sec.  241.87-.88; Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec.  
209.376; N.M. Stat. Ann. Sec.  33-1-4.2; N.Y. Correct. Law Sec.  611; 
61 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. Sec.  5905; R.I. Gen. Laws Sec.  42-56.3-3; 
Tex. Gov't. Code Ann. Sec.  501.066; Tex. Loc. Gov't. Code Ann. Sec.  
361.082; Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 28, Sec.  801a; Wash. Rev. Code Sec. Sec.  
72.09.651, 70.48.500; W. Va. Code Sec. Sec.  31-20-30a, 25-1-6.
    \74\ First Step Act, H.R. 5682, 115th Cong. Sec.  301 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    D. Solitary Confinement

    Women may also disproportionately be placed in solitary 
confinement, especially pregnant women,\75\ individuals with 
mental illness,\76\ transgender women and other sexual 
minorities,\77\ and--in a particularly disturbing trend--
victims of sexual assault by prison guards.\78\ Women of color, 
especially Black women, are held in solitary confinement at 
rates far exceeding their White counterparts.\79\ Women are 
also more likely than men to receive disciplinary actions for 
minor, nonviolent infractions like ``disobedience'' and also 
more likely to be placed into solitary confinement as 
punishment for such minor infractions.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\ See, e.g., Reassessing Solitary Confinement: Hearing Before 
the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, 
Civil Rights and Human Rights, 2011-12 Leg. Session 4 (N.Y. 2012) 
(statement of Correctional Association of New York) available at http:/
/www.correctionalassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/testimony-
solitary-confinement-june-2012.pdf (describing challenges pregnant 
women in isolation can face in trying to access medical care); 
Complaint at 9, Seitz v. Allegheny Cty., No. 16-1879 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 
2016), available at https://www.aclupa.org/download--file/view--inline/
2943/1055.
    \76\ See, e.g., James Ridgeway & Jean Casella, Locking Down The 
Mentally Ill: Solitary Confinement Cells Have Become America's New 
Asylums, The Crime Rep., Feb. 18, 2010, available at http://
www.thecrimereport.org/news/inside-criminal-justice/locking-down-the-
mentally-ill; Mary Beth Pfeiffer, Crazy in America: The Hidden Tragedy 
of Our Criminalized Mentally Ill 42-49 (2007); Jennifer R. Wynn, et 
al., Correctional Ass'n. of New York, Mental Health in the House of 
Corrections: A Study of Mental Health Care in New York State Prisons 48 
(2004). In some places, mentally ill women awaiting trial in jail may 
be transferred to solitary confinement at a State prison indefinitely 
because the cost of treating them at the jail is too high. Allen Arthur 
& Dave Boucher, Too Sick For Jail--But Not for Solitary, The Marshall 
Project (Feb. 15, 2018), https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/02/15/
too-sick-for-jail-but-not-for-solitary.
    \77\ Gay and bisexual prisoners, both male and female, are far more 
likely to have experienced solitary confinement than their cisgender 
straight counterparts. Ilan H. Meyer, et al., Incarceration Rates and 
Traits of Sexual Minorities in the United States: National Inmate 
Survey, 2011-2012 4 (2017), available at https://
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/
Meyer_Final_Proofs.LGB_.In_.pdf#page=4.
    \78\ Kim Shayo Buchanan, Impunity: Sexual Abuse in Women's Prisons, 
42 Harv. Civ. RTS--Civ. Librs. L. Rev. 45, 66 (2007) (describing sexual 
abuse of women including the variety of forms the abuse takes).
    \79\ Alexandria M. Foster, Unfinished Uniformity in Systematic 
Sentencing: Oppressive Treatment and Disproportionate Punishment 
Outcomes for Black Women in Federal Prisons, 6 Ind. J.L. & Soc. Equity 
267, 276 (2018). The racial disparity of who gets placed into solitary 
confinement is far more pronounced in women's institutions than in 
men's. For example, Black women account for under 24% of the female 
prison population but nearly 40% of women in solitary confinement. 
Black men represent a much higher percentage of the male population at 
42.5% and represent 46.1% of the male population in solitary 
confinement. The Association of State Correctional Administrators & The 
Linman Center for Public Interest Law at Yale Law School, Reforming 
Restrictive Housing: The 2018 ASCA-Liman Nationwide Survey of Time-In-
Cell 23 (2018), available at https://law.yale.edu/system/files/
documents/pdf/Liman/
asca_liman_2018_restrictive_housing_revised_sept_25_201_8_embargoed_unt.
pdf#
page=25.
    \80\ Joseph Shapiro, et al., In Prison Discipline Comes Down 
Hardest on Women, NPR (Oct. 15, 2018), https://www.npr.org/2018/10/15/
647874342/in-prison-discipline-comes-down-hardest-on-women.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Solitary confinement can wreak extreme psychological harms 
on people generally, and pregnant women particularly. Even 
without the heightened risks created by solitary confinement, 
pregnancy often carries greater risks of stress and 
depression.\81\ Placing pregnant women in solitary confinement 
only amplifies these risk factors. Stress on a pregnant woman 
may result in grave harms to the pregnant woman and her fetus, 
including preterm labor, low birth weight, and mental health 
problems for the child.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\ See generally Christine Dunkel Schetter & Lynlee Tanner, 
Anxiety, Depression, and Stress in Pregnancy: Implications for Mothers, 
Children, Research, and Practice, 25 Curr Opin Psychiatry 141, 141-48 
(2012), available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC4447112/pdf/nihms-693331.pdf (describing high rates of depression 
and anxiety among pregnant people, especially the poor and people of 
color, and associated negative birth outcomes).
    \82\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For these reasons, international standards set by the 
United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and 
Non-Custodial Measures for Women Offenders--known as the 
Bangkok Rules--prohibit the placement of pregnant or nursing 
women in solitary confinement.\83\ States are starting to take 
notice: Pennsylvania,\84\ New York,\85\ Massachusetts,\86\ and 
California \87\ limit the placement of pregnant people in 
solitary confinement under statutes, regulations, or settlement 
agreements. However, most pregnant women in the United States 
remain vulnerable to the threat of solitary confinement and the 
terrible risks this practice creates for both women and their 
pregnancies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \83\ G.A. Res. 65/229, para.7(b), U.N. Doc. A/RES/65/229 (Mar. 16, 
2011).
    \84\ See Settlement at 19, Seitz v. Allegheny Cty., No. 16-1879 
(W.D. Pa. Nov. 9, 2017), available at https://www.aclupa.org/
download_file/view_nline/3230/1055#page=19.
    \85\ Settlement at 37, Peoples v. Fischer, No. 11-2694 (S.D.N.Y. 
Dec. 16, 2015), available at https://www.nyclu.org/sites/default/files/
releases/20151216_settlementagreement_filed.pdf#
page=36.
    \86\ Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 127, Sec.  39A (2018).
    \87\ California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 
Operations Manual Sec. 54045.11 (2017), available at https://
www.cdcr.ca.gov/Regulations/Adult_Operations/docs/DOM/DOM%202017/
2017_DOM.PDF#page=493.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      E. Birth Behind Bars

    After giving birth, women who are incarcerated must face 
the additional strain of separating from their newborns. 
Currently, the overwhelming majority of children born to 
incarcerated mothers are immediately separated from their 
mothers after birth and placed with relatives or into foster 
care.\88\ It is estimated that 85% of incarcerated mothers in 
the United States are involuntarily separated from their child 
as a result of their incarceration.\89\ In-prison nurseries and 
community based residential parenting programs are available in 
only a handful of states.\90\ Only 42% of mothers in prison 
reported weekly contact with their children through in-person 
visits, video communications, telephone, mail, or e-mail.\91\ 
These options tend to be infrequent, unpredictable, and of poor 
quality. Tragically, more than half of incarcerated mothers 
reported that they had never experienced an in-person visit 
with their child.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\ Michal Gilad & Tal Gat, United States v. My Mommy: Evaluation 
of Prison Nurseries As A Solution for Children of Incarcerated Women, 
37 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 371, 372 (2013).
    \89\ Id.
    \90\ Elizabeth Chuck, Prison Nurseries Give Incarcerated Mothers a 
Chance To Raise Their Babies Behind Bars, NBC News (Aug. 4, 2018), 
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prison-nurseries-give-
incarcerated-mothers-chance-raise-their-babies-behind-n894171.
    \91\ Gilad & Gat, supra note 72, at 386.
    \92\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pregnant women facing imminent separation from their 
newborns experience profound trauma.\93\ The children who 
experience this separation are similarly harmed. The separation 
is considered an adverse childhood experience, which can cause 
long-lasting emotional and behavioral problems, especially 
compounded by other adverse experiences common among children 
with incarcerated parents such as poverty.\94\ Empirical 
evidence shows that the separation of an infant from her mother 
during the first year drastically impairs her ability to 
sympathize or show concern for others.\95\ Additional common 
symptoms of maternal separation include attachment disorders; 
aggression and anger; developmental and behavioral problems; 
sleeping, eating, or attention disorders; delays in educational 
development and achievement; excessive hostile behaviors toward 
peers; problems with social adaptation; greater likelihood to 
develop addiction to drugs or alcohol or engage in criminal 
activity; and unhealthy sexual behavior.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \93\ See Robin Levi et al., Creating the ``Bad Mother'': How the 
U.S. Approach to Pregnancy in Prisons Violates the Right To Be a 
Mother, 18 UCLA Women's L. J. 1, 55 (2010).
    \94\ Lindsey Cramer, Urban Institute, Parent-Child Visiting 
Practices in Prisons and Jails 2 (2017), available at https://
www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/89601/
parent-child_visiting_practices_in_prisons_and_jails.pdf#page=6.
    \95\ Gilad & Gat, supra note 72, at 381.
    \96\ Id.; see also Megan McMillen, I Need To Feel Your Touch: 
Allowing Newborns and Infants Contact Visitation With Jailed Parents, 
2012 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1811, 1823 (2012) (noting that if the ``mother-
child bond is disrupted between the ages of six months and four years, 
a child's development may be greatly [a]ffected,'' including increased 
anxiety disorders, impairment of the child's ``ability to sympathize or 
show concern for others'' later in life, and--even controlling for 
other factors--increased risk for future criminal behavior).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Access to sufficient supplies of menstrual hygiene products 
is a basic health care need that still goes unfulfilled at many 
institutions. Not all states require adequate access to 
menstrual products; even some indigent females are forced to 
purchase some or all of their monthly supply.\97\ Because many 
facilities require women to ask correctional officers for 
menstrual products, the opportunity for abuse is rampant. 
Officers may use basic hygiene needs to coerce them for sexual 
or other favors or to punish them for any reason. They may also 
use the threat of withholding necessary products to keep women 
in line or to prevent them from reporting abuse or other 
harmful conditions. These possibilities are not just abstract; 
many women have had to navigate the difficulty of accessing 
menstrual hygiene products that should have been made freely 
available to them. For example, Maryland legislators heard 
testimony from women who were denied menstrual hygiene products 
by officers to control them and firmly establish a dangerous 
power dynamic; \98\ a formerly incarcerated woman in 
Connecticut also recounted the fear and humiliation of having 
to ask officers for menstrual products knowing that her 
requests might be derided or even denied.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\ See Lydia O'Connor, Federal Prisons Made Menstrual Products 
Free. Now Some States May Follow Suit, Huffington Post (Feb. 7, 2018), 
https://www.huffingtonpost/entry/state-prison-free-pads-
tampons_us5a7b427be4b08dfc92ff5231.
    \98\ See Brian Witte, No Tampons in Prison? #MeToo Helps Shine 
Light on Issue, Associated Press (Mar. 27, 2018), https://
www.apnews.com/6a1805c4e8204e5b84a0c549ff9b7a31.
    \99\ See Chandra Bozelko, Prisons That Withhold Menstrual Pads 
Humiliate Women and Violate Basic Rights, The Guardian (June 12, 2015), 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/12/prisons-
menstrual-pads-humiliate-women-violate-rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In one Michigan jail, women were regularly denied access to 
desperately needed menstrual products.\100\ Females there 
received such products late, after begging for them, or not at 
all. They were therefore forced to use toilet paper to staunch 
the bleeding or else bleed into their prison jumpsuits. Because 
laundry day occurred once a week, women were forced to re-wear 
bloody clothes for up to a full week. In addition, prison staff 
forced women to compete for limited menstrual products, in one 
case ordering 30 women to share a pack of 12 sanitary napkins. 
This behavior was cruel and senseless--except as a method of 
humiliation and control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \100\ Complaint at 13-14, Semelbaucher v. Muskegon Cty., No. 14-
1245 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2014), available at https://
www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/JC-MI-0010-0001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            F. Access to Menstrual Hygiene Products

    Even when policies to provide menstrual hygiene products do 
exist, they are not always fully implemented. For example, BOP 
guidelines require provision of menstrual hygiene products, but 
a review by the OIG determined that women still do not have 
sufficient access.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \101\ OIG Report, supra note 24, at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                V. Gender Responsive Programming

    Because women entering prison have trauma histories and 
needs different from men, correctional institutions must 
develop and implement gender-responsive programming. Gender-
responsive programming includes medical and mental healthcare 
that is responsive to women's needs.
    1Pregnancy testing, prenatal care, and access to abortion 
must become standard in all institutions that house women. Some 
facilities have already begun to do this, but not nearly 
enough. For example, one study found that fewer than 40% of 
jails test women for pregnancy upon entrance and fewer than 50% 
utilize appropriate opioid withdrawal protocol for pregnant 
women.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \102\ See C.M. Kelsey, et al., An Examination of Care Practices of 
Pregnant Women Incarcerated in Jail Facilities in the United States, 21 
Maternal and Child Health J. 1260 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A number of states and the Federal Government have 
experimented with gender-responsive pregnancy programs. A few 
states have piloted doula programs, in which pregnant women are 
given training and emotional support during pregnancy. Women 
were generally satisfied with these programs and had lower 
caesarean-section rates, although they did not lessen the grief 
the mothers felt at having to part with their infants after 
birth.\103\ A more intensive program in Michigan allows some 
pregnant women to live in a special housing unit during 
pregnancy, receive intensive specialized prenatal care 
including substance-abuse treatment, receive other necessary 
social services, and live and bond with their children for a 
month after birth. This program has a high success rate, with 
positive outcomes for the children and lower recidivism rates 
for the mothers.\104\ A federal program allows some women to 
live and bond with their infants after giving birth. 
Participants spoke positively of the program and the 
opportunity to form a bond with their children, but the program 
is underutilized.\105\ These programs show the benefits of 
pregnancy-focused programming and care, but they have not been 
sufficiently replicated--prisons can do much more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \103\ See Hotelling, supra note 29, at 41.
    \104\ Id.
    \105\ OIG Report, supra note 24, at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, states and facilities must work to ensure that 
women have access to menstrual hygiene products. Maryland now 
leads the way with a law requiring correctional facilities that 
house women to provide sufficient menstrual hygiene products to 
their females and to maintain records on the availability of 
such products.\106\ Reporting and review of policies and actual 
availability is important, as the OIG report showed. Even when 
a policy exists, outside actors, such as legislatures or 
independent agencies, may need to step in when it does not 
translate to true access.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\ Md. Code, Corr. Servs. Sec. Sec.  4-214, 9-616 (2017).
    \107\ See OIG Report, supra note 24, at 31-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Trauma victims may suffer when guarded during their most 
private moments by men without a female guard present, in 
addition to the potential for abuse and degradation.\108\ The 
loss of privacy experienced by people in prison is especially 
damaging to the many incarcerated women who are also victims of 
past sexual abuse, since close supervision and discipline by 
male guards can reinforce feelings of vulnerability and can re-
traumatize women who have experienced violence by men.\109\ The 
presence of male guards in women's facilities also increases 
the danger of staff sexual misconduct,\110\ which remains a 
serious problem in spite of increased awareness of the 
issue.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \108\ PREA regulations have prohibited male guards from viewing 
female prisoners while they shower, change clothes or use the toilet 
since 2012. 28 CFR 115.15 (d). However, this still regularly occurs. 
See Letter from Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Assistant U.S. Attorney 
General, to Governor Robert Bentley re Investigation of the Julia 
Tutwiler Prison for Women and Notice of Expanded Investigation 11 (Jan. 
17, 2014) available at https://eji.org/sites/default/files/justice-
department-findings-letter-tutwiler-prison-investigation.pdf#page=11 
(finding female inmates at Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women in Alabama 
had no privacy in bathroom or showers and male officers routinely 
entered shower and bathroom facilities unannounced); Peter Goonan, 
Strip-Search Videotaping of Female Inmates by Male Guards Ruled 
Unconstitutional by U.S. Judge in Springfield, Masslive (Aug. 27, 
2014), (Massachusetts guards watched videotaped strip searches of 
female inmates). International standards clearly prohibit cross-gender 
supervision. Rule 53 of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment 
of Prisoners (SMR) explicitly prohibits all cross-gender surveillance 
and provides for a female guard to accompany any male personnel in a 
women's facility. First U.N. Congress on the Prevent1ion of Crime and 
the Treatment of Offenders, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of 
Prisoners, Rule 53 (1955), available at http://www.unodc.org/pdf/
criminal_justice/UN_Standard_Minimum_Rules
_for_the_Treatment_of_Prisoners.pdf [hereinafter SMR 53]; see also 
Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on 
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 
at para. 46 (noting the SMRs are ``widely accepted as the universal 
norm for the humane treatment of prisoners'').
    \109\ Elizabeth Swavola, et al., Vera Institute of Justice, 
Overlooked: Women and Jails in an Era of Reform 14 (2016), available at 
http://www.safetyandjusticechallenge.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/overlooked-women-in-jails-report-
web.pdf#page=14 (danger of retraumatization/PTSD due to male guards 
viewing them at intimate moments).
    \110\ Allen Beck & Ramona Rantala, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 
Sexual Victimization Reported by Adult Correctional Authorities, 2009-
11 1, 8 (2014) available at https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/
svraca0911.pdf (despite comprising only 7% of the population, women 
prisoners accounted for 33% of substantiated staff-on-inmate sexual 
victimization; in local jails, male guards perpetrated 80% of such 
incidents).
    \111\ See, e.g., Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence 
Against Women: Addendum, para. 34, Mission to the United States of 
America, 6 June 2011, United Nations General Assembly A/HRC/17/26/
Add.5, available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/
17session/A.HRC.17.26.Add.5_en.pdf [hereinafter Violence Against Women] 
(describing continued sexual abuse of women in custody, both physically 
forced and otherwise coerced); Buchanan, supra note 62 at 55-57 
(describing sexual abuse of women including the variety of forms the 
abuse takes); Elizabeth Chuck, ``Frequent and severe'' sexual violence 
alleged at women's prison in Alabama, MSNBC (May 23, 2012), http://
usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/23/11830574-frequent-and-severe-
sexual-violence-alleged-at-womens-prison-in-alabama?lite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thus, correctional facilities need to ensure that policies 
and programs are responsive to trauma. This includes not just 
counseling services, but a holistic approach to ensure that 
prison staff do not re-traumatize victims or prevent their 
recovery. Trauma-responsive programming has been instituted in 
some places. For example, the BOP has instituted two gender-
responsive programs: Resolve and Female-Integrated Treatment 
Program (FIT). Resolve is a national program offered to women 
with trauma-related mental illness that includes education, 
psychological testing, and various types of group therapy 
intended to teach skills for overcoming symptoms.\112\ Women 
who took the whole program have found it helpful in dealing 
with past trauma and preparing for life after prison, but 
staffing is so low that only 3% of women sentenced in BOP can 
be accommodated at a time.\113\ FIT is a more intensive, 
individualized program tailored to each woman's mental health, 
substance abuse, and trauma history. However, this program is 
only offered at one low-security institution and is therefore 
not available to the vast majority of women in BOP 
custody.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \112\ OIG Report, at 7-8.
    \113\ Id. at 19.
    \114\ Id. at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               VI. Conclusion and Recommendations

    Women are the fastest growing incarcerated population in 
the United States, leaving far too many children and families 
without a mother. Until incarcerating women in this country 
becomes a punishment of last resort, the criminal legal system 
has to determine how to deal with the healthcare, childcare and 
gender programming needs of women in jails and prisons. With 
the unprecedented rise in the number of women behind bars, 
federal and State systems must figure out how best to keep 
women safe and healthy while in custody.
    Once incarcerated, women are subjected to a system that was 
designed by and for men--with glaring voids of resources, 
treatments and conditions required for women. To create a 
smarter, fairer justice system, we must establish policies 
specifically designed with women in mind. Until we recognize 
the unique circumstances, needs and consequences associated 
with women who come into contact with the criminal legal 
system, we will never truly address the nation's mass 
incarceration problem.
    Below are a number of recommendations that encourage the 
criminal legal system to use incarceration as a last option and 
to focus on keeping women home in society, and with their 
children and families.
    1. Develop Alternatives to Incarceration. Compared to men, 
women--and girls--are more often first-time, low level 
offenders. Even women convicted of more serious offenses often 
became involved in criminal activity on behalf of male partners 
or other family Members. Society would be better served if more 
women were provided with opportunities to avoid incarceration 
through diversion programs, probation and other rehabilitative 
alternatives. Ensuring that women can access jobs, education, 
housing and adequate medical and mental health care would 
afford greater public safety without punitive and unnecessary 
incarceration.
    2. Foster Mother-Child Relationships. Correctional 
facilities must develop and implement policies that support the 
bond between a mother and her child, even while the mother 
remains incarcerated. The mother-child relationship must be 
fostered through such measures as broader visitation policies, 
carefully designed in-prison nursery programs, child-friendly 
visitation areas, video visitation to supplement, rather than 
replace, in-person visitation, access to email and keeping 
incarcerated women in close proximity to their home 
communities.
    3. Ban Shackling and the Use of Solitary Confinement on 
Pregnant Women. All states must end the practice of shackling 
women during pregnancy, delivery and postpartum. The practice 
is inhumane and unsafe. Those states that have yet to enact 
anti-shackling laws must do so, and those states with anti-
shackling laws need to strengthen their laws to ban the 
practice outright, as well as fully enforce their laws. 
Likewise, all states and jurisdictions should enact laws and 
policies to ban the practice of placing pregnant women in 
solitary confinement and ensure that those laws and policies 
are implemented.
    4. Implement Clear Health Policies for Women. All 
correctional facilities housing women and girls must develop 
and implement clear policies regarding their specific health 
care needs, including but not limited to pregnancy care, 
postpartum care, the provision of abortions, routine 
gynecological care, and pre- and post-menopausal care. These 
policies must conform to the community standard of care and the 
law.
    5. Train Corrections Staff. All corrections facilities 
housing women and girls must appropriately train their custody 
and medical care staffs to address women's unique needs, 
including their trauma history, higher rates of mental health 
diagnosis, menstrual needs, general health and reproductive 
health care needs, and their ongoing role as mothers and 
community Members.
    6. Implement Gender-Responsive Programming. Many 
correctional facilities have experimented with various gender-
responsive programming, including access to pregnancy-care and 
menstrual hygiene products and trauma-informed approaches to 
correctional management. Successful programs must be replicated 
and expanded to provide appropriate programming to all women 
under correctional supervision.

    Ms. Bass. Thank you. Ms. Shank.
    [The statement of Ms. Shank follows:]

                   TESTIMONY OF CYNTHIA SHANK

    Ms. Shank. Hi, thank you for allowing me to come here today 
and share my story. May name is Cynthia Shank, and in 2008, I 
was convicted on drug conspiracy charges from a crime that 
happened when I was 24 years old. I met a man when I was 24 
years old in 1997 and he--in the course of our relationship 
over 5 years, he grew into a drug dealer, and he became a very 
large drug dealer. During my relationship with him, he was very 
abusive to me, keeping me from my family, keeping me from my 
friends, to the extent that there were locks on all the doors, 
double-sided locks and bars on all the windows. In the last 
year I was with him, I wasn't allowed to leave the house at 
all. Over the course of him being such a large drug dealer, his 
paranoia and control took over to the point where I had no 
control over anything that I could even do. He was murdered in 
2002, and I was initially charged with conspiracy to his drug 
operation.
    The charges were actually dropped, and I actually moved on 
with my life. I gave my life to the Lord. I started focusing on 
myself and bettering myself. I met a wonderful man, we got 
married, had two beautiful daughters. I was pregnant with my 
third daughter when I was indicted 5\1/2\ years later, all 
those crimes that were committed 5 or 6 years prior.
    I then went away to prison in 2008 when my daughter, 
Annalise, was just 6 weeks old; Autumn was 4; and Ava was 2 
years old. Needless to say, that prison destroyed my small 
young family. Prison is set up to separate and destroy bonds 
that are there, and as a mother, you need to be there for your 
children.
    I was initially sent to Pekin, Illinois, which I was 
getting regular visits, and I was able to see the girls about 
every 6 to 8 weeks. The prison closed for women and it was 
transferred to a men's R gap, so I was sent to Coleman, 
Florida. So now, I saw my daughters once a year at that point, 
and they were still so young.
    During my time in Florida, my husband filed for divorce, 
which I completely understood, because he was serving the 
sentence, too, with me. I wanted him to have a chance and a 
life. Sorry.
    I spent 8\1/2\ years in Federal prison before I was given 
clemency by President Obama. During my time in Federal prison, 
though, I met many women who were just like me, who were 
serving long sentences for crimes related to their then, 
husbands or boyfriends that they had little knowledge of.
    I had to witness and hear the cries of mothers at night who 
had just signed over custody of their children, because they no 
longer could be there for them, and they were taken away from 
them. To hear mothers cry at night over and over again, 
different mothers every night for something that--to have your 
child taken away from you forever and signed away is something 
that I will never forget, or coming back from a visit, and 
having a mother cry in my arms, because her daughter said, Mom, 
the person that I have been staying with has been touching me. 
These are the realities that when mothers leave, their children 
are put in places where they are not 100 percent protected. 
Nobody is going to care for your child as a mother does. So, 
when a mother is taken away, it is the children who suffer.

                   STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA SHANK

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the 
impact of the federal criminal justice system on my life and 
that of my family. My name is Cynthia Shank and I was released 
from federal prison in March, 2017 after President Barak Obama 
commuted my 15-year sentence for drug related offenses. I 
served nine years in federal prison.
    My story is not uncommon. Prior to my conviction for my 
involvement in a drug conspiracy, I had no criminal record. I 
had been happily married for 4 years, was the mother of two 
young girls--Autumn and Ava--and 8 months pregnant with my 
third daughter, Annalise. My incarceration broke our young 
family apart and left permanent emotional and psychological 
scars on our daughters.
    My offense stemmed from a relationship I began years 
earlier when I was 24-years-old. I was working as a bartender 
and met a young, attractive and attentive man named Alex. We 
started dating and soon began living together. Eight months 
into our relationship I came home from work early one day to 
find him selling a small amount of crack cocaine to a stranger 
in our living room. After my discovery Alex became anxious that 
I would report him and began following me to work and spending 
all day watching me to make sure I said nothing about his drug 
selling. After months of this my boss complained, and Alex 
pressured me to quit my job, which I did.
    A year into our relationship I was completely dependent on 
Alex as he became more deeply involved in the drug trade. He 
was controlling and possessive of me and was both physically 
and verbally abusive. If I tried to visit my family he would 
insist I return home after only a short 30-minute visit. He 
eventually placed locks on all the windows and doors of our 
home and I rarely left the house. Even during periods when Alex 
would leave for extended trips he had me monitored. He called 
regularly to make sure I was at home and he sent his associates 
to knock on the door to make sure I was telling the truth.
    During one of Alex's last trips away I gathered up enough 
nerve to leave and went to my sister's place. Three days later 
he came for me with a gun. To protect her and her young 
children, I left with him without a fight.
    Alex did not love me but he wanted to keep me close because 
he thought I knew too much about his drug operation. I began to 
smoke an ounce of marijuana every day just to numb myself to 
the pain of my existence. My sister suspected I was being 
abused by Alex when she found out I had gone to the hospital 
after I was beaten with a broomstick and had seriously injured 
my eye. There was nothing she could do, however, because I 
would never admit to the abuse and never report him to police. 
Alex told me, ``if you call the cops I am going to shoot you.'' 
I believed him. At night he slept next to me with his hand 
under my pillow holding a gun.
    The bigger his drug operation got the more paranoid and 
violent he became. Five years after we met, Alex was murdered 
in a shootout in front of our home. I was awakened by the sound 
of bullets and was called out of my bedroom by Alex's associate 
and was instructed to drive Alex to the hospital where he died. 
I could not believe he was dead when the police told me. To 
this day, I don't know who killed him.
    My relationship with Alex would impact the rest of my life. 
I told police I had known about his drug operation. Months 
after his death my attorney told me that the case against me 
had been dismissed. I moved on with my life. I quit smoking 
marijuana. I reconnected with my faith. I got married and gave 
birth to two daughters. But years after Alex's death 
prosecutors decided to charge me under drug conspiracy laws and 
for intent to distribute large amounts of cocaine, crack and 
marijuana. I never sold drugs but I lived with a dangerous and 
manipulative drug dealer and in the eyes of prosecutors there 
was no difference.
    I fought the charges and went to trial because I was not 
going to admit to something I did not do. I needed to finally 
stand up for myself and show my daughters how to be brave. I 
thought if I could just tell my story, they would understand. 
But all the trauma inflicted upon me by Alex didn't matter.
    Ultimately, I was convicted and because of mandatory 
minimum sentencing requirements I received a 15-year term. My 
youngest daughter, Annalise, was six weeks old when I went to 
prison. My husband, Adam, became a single father. I believe the 
years and miles of separation caused by incarceration are 
designed to break the bonds between families. Phone calls and 
visits are strictly limited both by expense and prison rules. 
There is no support for the aftermath of incarceration, 
especially for the children left behind. The week I left for 
prison my girls started going to therapy, but that is a luxury 
most families cannot afford.
    Most of the women I was incarcerated with were in prison 
because of drugs or money. They were poor and had struggled 
with a substance use disorder and never gotten help. Many were 
like me and had a partner who was primarily responsible for the 
crimes for which they had been convicted. If they had access to 
therapy, education and jobs their circumstances may have turned 
out differently.
    According to The Sentencing Project, between 1980 and 2017, 
the number of incarcerated women increased by more than 750% 
nationwide. The rate of growth for female imprisonment has been 
twice as high as that of men since 1980. Today, the Bureau of 
Prisons incarcerates nearly 13,000 women.
    I finally left prison because nine years after I was 
sentenced President Obama granted my petition for clemency. I 
was lucky but so many deserving women are still incarcerated 
and need relief from their excessive sentences.
    Today, my life is amazing. I work full-time. I have my own 
home. And, I am reunited with my girls and enjoying every 
minute of being with them and raising them. I share my story 
with you today because I want to help other incarcerated women 
and help them achieve their own success story. I hope Congress 
will give them a second chance.

    Ms. Bass. Thank you very much. Ms. Kerman.

                   TESTIMONY OF PIPER KERMAN

    Ms. Kerman. Thank you, Chairman Bass, Ranking Member 
Ratcliffe and Members of the committee. I appreciate you 
inviting me here. In my memoir, ``Orange is the New Black,'' I 
recount the 13 months that I spent incarcerated in the Federal 
prison system with most of my time served at the Federal 
correctional institution in Danbury, Connecticut. I was also 
incarcerated for a first-time drug offense.
    I am grateful to add my voice with other return citizens 
like Cindy Shank and Charlotte, who are here with us today, to 
call for changes to the U.S. criminal justice system. Our 
experiences are essential to understanding the reform that is 
needed in the system, so that it will both provide for public 
safety, but in a way that is legal, humane and sensible, and 
that is why I am here today.
    So, incarceration rates are not driven by crime rates. They 
are driven by policy decisions. For decades, women and girls 
have been the fastest growing part of the prison population in 
the United States. Is this because of an unprecedented crime 
wave perpetrated by American women? No. Rather, the 700 percent 
increase in female incarcerations has been driven by government 
policy, bad policy decisions, like the 1994 Federal crime bill, 
which resulted in inflated incarceration rates at both the 
Federal and the State levels. One of most clear-cut examples of 
the failed policies of mass incarceration is the increased 
imprisonment of women and girls and what happens to them and 
their families, like families like Cindy's.
    There is very little public safety rationale for most 
women's prison sentences which impose a very heavy cost to the 
American public, both socially and economically. Almost all 
women--among all women in prison and jail, it is estimated that 
between 80 and 90 percent have themselves been victims of 
violence, or serious trauma, prior to their incarceration.
    Because our law enforcement system does not target or treat 
all Americans equally, the data shows that women of color are 
over-represented in the criminal justice system, even though 
they are not more likely than White women to commit crimes. One 
of the reasons that my memoir caught the public imagination is 
that it is so unusual for a middle-class White woman to policed 
and to be prosecuted and to be punished with prison. 
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for women of color.
    American prisons and jails are built by and for men, and 
they are governed by policies and procedures that are developed 
for male prisoners.
    In addition, American prisons and jails are punitive, and 
they rarely rehabilitate or restore the people we send there, 
almost all of whom will return to the community. I was 
incarcerated in a women's prison, and I now teach in a men's 
medium security prison. I can assure you that there is no 
institution more hierarchical, dominance-orientated, 
patriarchal, and operating constantly on the threat and the 
promise of violence than an American prison.
    This is not an accident; it is by design. The failure of 
punitive policy is reflected in our high recidivism rates. So, 
for most incarcerated women, regardless of their background, 
their prison sentence does not only punish them, and that is 
because most mothers in prison have kids under the age of 18.
    Most incarcerated mothers are also the single heads of 
household, and when we lock them up, the effect on their family 
is seismic. On all measures from stable housing, being well-
fed, to doing well in school, parental incarceration seriously 
harms children. So, we don't have to do things this way.
    Before I conclude my testimony, I want to draw your 
attention to just two policies that could, if replicated across 
the country, help to fix some of the mistakes of the last four 
decades.
    So, one is a program in New York called JusticeHome. 
JusticeHome began in 2013. As part of the program, in 
cooperation with judges and prosecutors, women who are facing 
prison or jail for a felony are given a chance to remain at 
home with their families, to be held accountable in the 
community, and to get the help and support that they need to do 
better.
    That is exactly what happens and 88 percent of JusticeHome 
graduates remain arrest-free after they complete the program. 
JusticeHome also realizes massive fiscal savings. If the total 
cost to taxpayers to incarcerate a woman in New York, if she 
has two children who go into foster care is over $130,000 a 
year. It costs less than $20,000 a year to support a woman to a 
better future via JusticeHome. It gets much better results.
    Again, looking to the States for innovation, we see two new 
primary caretaker legislations adopted in Massachusetts and 
Tennessee. These new measures require judges in those States to 
consider family impact when they are sentencing a person who is 
a primary caregiver of minor children, and to impose 
accountability measures that are appropriate for the offense 
that will not harm those children.
    It is worth pointing out that Massachusetts and Tennessee 
have very different political landscapes. Everybody can see the 
value of this kind of reform, regardless of their political 
party. Primary caretaker policies should be adopted within the 
Federal system, so that Federal judges are required to make the 
same considerations at sentencing.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you.
    Ms. Kerman. So, I look forward to today's important 
testimony on women and girls' pathways into prison, the harsh 
conditions that we must survive there, and the steps that are 
necessary for a safe and successful return to the community. I 
implore the Members of this Committee and all public officials 
to prioritize policy changes that will reduce the number of 
women and girls ever going into a correctional facility because 
those are changes that will make us safer. Thank you.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Kerman follows:]

                    STATEMENT OF MS. KERMAN

    I spent 13 months as a prisoner in the Federal Bureau of 
Prisons system from 2004-2005, with most of my time served at 
the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut.
    If you are familiar with my book, Orange Is the New Black, 
I'm the first to acknowledge that unlike many prisoners, I have 
the resources and support to take my own experiences in prison 
and use them to try to make critical improvements to this 
country's criminal justice system. Since my release, I have 
worked with many criminal justice-involved women who advocate 
for the changes they need to be safe and to get back on their 
feet. I am here today in that capacity.
    Women's incarceration is a growing problem and has been for 
years.\1\ The majority of incarcerated women in this country 
are charged with drug offenses or property crimes; many of 
these are low-level offenses, yet they may be met with prison 
or jail sentences. A sentence means the removal of a woman from 
her community, from her family, from her children if she is a 
mother, and exile into a correctional facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Since 1978, women's State prison populations have grown 834%, 
while men's State prison populations have grown 367%. Wendy Sawyer, The 
Gender Divide: Tracking Women's State Prison Growth (2018). Prison 
Policy Initiative. Available at https://www.prisonpolicy.org/
reports/women_overtime.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    American prisons and jails are built by and for men, 
governed by policies and procedures developed for male 
prisoners. I was incarcerated in a women's prison and I now 
teach in a men's medium-security prison and I can assure you 
there is no institution more hierarchical, dominance-oriented, 
patriarchal and based on the threat and promise of violence 
than an American prison. This is not an accident; it is by 
design.
    Incarceration rates are driven by policy, not by crime 
rates. It's essential that current policymakers fully 
comprehend this crucial fact, as they bear the responsibility 
of reversing decades of bad criminal justice policy decisions 
and repairing their negative consequences for all Americans. 
Specifically, the federal crime bill of 1994 had the effect of 
not only inflating federal incarceration rates but also 
incentivizing the states to incarcerate more people. As a 
Nation we are still struggling with the legacy of this bad 
policymaking; many individuals, corporations and special 
interests draw huge benefit--and in some cases profit--from the 
status quo of mass incarceration.
    While the lack of correlation between crime rates and 
incarceration is widely acknowledged by criminology experts, it 
remains unknown or unacknowledged by many policymakers and the 
public. The conventional wisdom that incarceration is the best 
or only response to crime is dead wrong, and has had corrosive 
consequences for this nation, especially for people of color 
and poor people who are most likely to be incarcerated. 
According to the 2014 report by the National Research Council 
of the National Academies on The Growth of Incarceration in the 
United States:

        Yet over the four decades when incarceration rates steadily 
        rose, U.S. crime rates showed no clear trend: The rate of 
        violent crime rose, then fell, rose again, then declined 
        sharply. The best single proximate explanation of the rise in 
        incarceration is not rising crime rates, but the policy choices 
        made by legislators to greatly increase the use of imprisonment 
        as a response to crime. Mandatory prison sentences, intensified 
        enforcement of drug laws, and long sentences contributed not 
        only to overall high rates of incarceration, but also 
        especially to extraordinary rates of incarceration in Black and 
        Latino communities. Intensified enforcement of drug laws 
        subjected blacks, more than whites, to new mandatory minimum 
        sentences--despite lower levels of drug use and no higher 
        demonstrated levels of trafficking among the Black than the 
        White population. Blacks had long been more likely than whites 
        to be arrested for violence. But three strikes, truth-in-
        sentencing, and related laws have likely increased sentences 
        and time served for blacks more than whites. As a consequence, 
        the absolute disparities in incarceration increased, and 
        imprisonment became common for young minority men, particularly 
        those with little schooling.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ National Research Council (2014). Summary. In Travis, J., 
Western, B. & Redburn, S. (Eds.), The Growth of Incarceration in the 
United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences (pp.
1-12). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    It's important to emphasize this disconnect because we've 
so normalized prison and jail as our only response to problems 
and conflicts in our communities. The United States 
incarcerates far more of its own people than any Nation in the 
world. No society in human history has ever locked up so many 
of its own citizens. And yet: American prisons and jails don't 
fix problems like substance abuse and addiction, mental 
illness, or family or community violence. Quite the opposite, 
most correctional settings in this country unquestionably make 
these problems worse, not better, hidden behind the walls where 
we exile our own people.
    After a person returns from prison or jail, their sentence 
is not over. Probation and parole are problematic systems that 
continue to punish rather than help people, and are 
particularly harmful to the poor, who make up the bulk of 
Americans caught in the maze of the criminal justice system. As 
civil rights lawyer Bryan Stevenson has noted, we have a legal 
system that treats you better if you are rich and guilty than 
if you are poor and innocent. I draw your attention to the 
Jeffrey Epstein case as just one among many very recent 
examples of this truth.
    Among the most vulnerable people caught in the maze of the 
American criminal justice system are women and girls. Women are 
the fastest growing population in the American criminal justice 
system, and their families and communities are also punished by 
what happens when we choose to incarcerate a woman. A 
significant majority of women in prison are there for a 
nonviolent offense.\3\ Many women are incarcerated due to 
substance abuse and mental health problems, which are 
overwhelmingly prevalent issues in prisons and jails. For women 
and girls there is also a staggering, widespread incidence of 
victimization by sexual abuse or other physical violence before 
incarceration.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ In 2012, 37.1% of women in State prison were held for a violent 
offense, compared with 55.0% of men. E. Ann Carson, Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, Prisoners in 2013, Tbl. 9, September 30, 2014, available at 
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf.
    \4\ In 2012, 86% of women in jails had experienced sexual violence, 
77% had experienced partner violence, and 60% had experienced caregiver 
violence before their incarceration. Lynch
et al. Women's Pathways to Jail: Examining Mental Health, Trauma, and 
Substance Use (2013). Bureau of Justice Assistance. Available at 
https://www.bja.gov/Publications/WomensPathways
ToJail.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Before we even think about where or how women and girls 
should be incarcerated, we should consider if they should be 
incarcerated. There are other ways for them to serve their time 
that result in less damage to them and their families. When we 
look to the states, we see such innovations, such as 
JusticeHome in New York. JusticeHome allows some women who 
plead guilty to felonies to remain in their homes with their 
children. The women report regularly in court and are visited 
weekly by case managers to make sure they receive supervision 
and guidance about jobs, education and management of their 
homes and children. Some must receive treatment for drug 
addiction and mental illness. The cost of JusticeHome is less 
than 20,000 per family, while it costs over $130 K to 
incarcerate a woman in New York City for one year if two of her 
children are sent into foster care.\5\ What is priceless about 
this program is that it is working hard to keep families 
together which we know is an effective way to reduce crime and 
increase safety, and to stop a cycle that can condemn entire 
families to the penal system. 88% of JusticeHome graduates 
remain arrest-free after completion of the program.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ McHugh, Diana. ``Re: JusticeHome Success Data Points.'' Message 
to Kamara Jones. July 2, 2019. Email.
    \6\ McHugh, Diana. ``Re: JusticeHome Success Data Points.'' Message 
to Kamara Jones. July 2, 2019. Email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Again, looking to the states for innovation, we see new 
primary caretaker legislation adopted in Massachusetts and 
Tennessee that acknowledges that when a sentence is imposed it 
impacts not only the convicted person but also her children and 
family.\7\ These new measures require judges in Massachusetts 
and Tennessee to consider family impact when sentencing a 
person who is the primary caregiver of minor children, and to 
impose accountability measures appropriate for the offense that 
will not harm those children. This legislative reform was 
conceived of and championed by formerly incarcerated women from 
the National Council of Formerly Incarcerated and Incarcerated 
Women and Girls,\8\ a true example of the power of women's 
wisdom and activism in service of the lives of others; it 
should be adopted within the federal system so that federal 
judges are required to make the same considerations at 
sentencing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Human Impact Partners. (April, 2019) Keeping Kids and Parents 
Together: A Healthier Approach to Sentencing in MA, TN, LA. Retrieved 
from https://humanimpact.org/hipprojects/
primary-caretakers/.
    \8\ ``Current Legislation.'' Families for Justice as Healing, 
available at http://justiceashealing .org/current-legislation/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Incarcerated women suffer from disproportionately high 
incidences of mental illness, substance use disorder, and 
survival of serious trauma like sexual assault or domestic 
abuse. However, these issues are not being addressed adequately 
in the federal prison system. With more than 200,000 people in 
its custody, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has grown to become 
the nation's largest prison system.\9\ The federal prison 
population has increased more than eight-fold since 1980,\10\ 
reflecting the United States' unique and regrettable reliance 
on incarceration to inappropriately and ineffectively address 
social problems like substance abuse, mental illness and 
poverty. Below I outline some of the ways in which the Bureau 
could and should improve its treatment of women in custody.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Federal Bureau of Prisons, Inmate Statistics, July 30, 2015, 
available at http://www .bop.gov/about/statistics/
population_statistics.jsp#pop_report_cont.
    \10\ Federal Bureau of Prisons, Past Inmate Population Totals, 
available at http://www .bop.gov/about/statistics/
population_statistics.jsp#old_pops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Bureau of Prisons should adopt gender-responsive 
policies and programs along the lines of best practices in 
states such as Washington that reduce recidivism rates and give 
women opportunities to reintegrate into their communities and 
succeed post-incarceration.
    Gender-responsive correctional approaches are guided by 
women-centered research. They are strengths-based, trauma-
informed, culturally competent, and holistic. These approaches 
recognize the importance of relationships as a target of 
intervention for women. Finally, they account for the different 
characteristics and life experiences of women and men who are 
involved with the criminal justice system, and respond to their 
unique needs, strengths and challenges.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ National Resource Center on Justice Involved Women, Gender 
Responsive Discipline and Sanctions Policy Guide for Women's 
Facilities, Key Definitions, n.d., available at http://
cjinvolvedwomen.org/sites/all/documents/
DisciplineGuideSection1Overview.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Most research in the correctional field has been conducted 
on men. The research that has been done on women shows that the 
risk factors I mentioned, and others specific to women, require 
different approaches than the BOP takes for men to reduce 
women's recidivism and achieve more successful outcomes. This 
is not unlike findings in other fields such as healthcare, 
where gender-specific research found that women experience 
heart attack symptoms quite differently from men.
    This understanding in turn led to gender-specific responses 
to these symptoms.
    Female prisoners are different from male prisoners in a 
number of obvious and less obvious ways. In addition to having 
a higher percentage of mentally ill people among their ranks, 
incarcerated women are often single moms with young children. 
Very high incidences of sexual and physical assault \12\ are a 
reality for women in prison, jail and immigration detention 
centers, both before and during their incarceration. It is 
essential to consider this trauma to establish rehabilitation 
that works, and to avoid correctional settings that make things 
worse.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ In State prison, 57.6% of women reported past physical or 
sexual abuse, compared to 16.1% of men. In federal prisons, 39.9% of 
women reported past abuse, compared to 7.2% of men. In jails, 47.6% of 
women reported past abuse, compared to 12.9% of men. Caroline Wolf 
Harlow, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prior Abuse Reported By Inmates 
And Probationers 1 (1999), available at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/
pdf/parip.pdf. More than a third of women in State prisons or local 
jails reported being physically or sexually abused before the age of 
eighteen.
    \13\ Human Rights Watch, All Too Familiar: Sexual Abuse of Women in 
U.S. State Prisons (1996), available at http://www.hrw.org/legacy/
reports/1996/Us1.htm [hereinafter All Too Familiar] (``One of the clear 
contributing factors to sexual misconduct in U.S. prisons for women is 
that the United States, despite authoritative international rules to 
the contrary, allows male correctional employees to hold contact 
positions over prisoners, that is, positions in which they serve in 
constant physical proximity to the prisoners of the opposite sex.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Instituting gender-responsive policies garners 
significantly improved outcomes including reductions of inmate-
on-staff assaults and inmate-on-inmate assaults, segregation 
placements, disciplinary reports, one-on-one mental health 
watches, petitions for psychiatric evaluation, crisis contacts, 
self-injury incidents and suicide attempts.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ National Resource Center on Justice Involved Women, Gender 
Responsive Discipline and Sanctions Policy Guide for Women's 
Facilities, Exhibit 1: Benefits of Implementing Trauma-Informed 
Approaches at MCI Framingham Frequency of Incidents in 2011 and 2012, 
n.d., available at http://cjinvolvedwomen.org/sites/all/documents/
DisciplineGuideSection1Overview.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These policies clearly make women's correctional facilities 
safer for prisoners and staff, which is the first step towards 
creating a rehabilitative environment. If we want to reduce 
recidivism for women and help them be more successful when they 
return home, we need to address their specific risk factors and 
needs--gender-responsive policies and programming, such as the 
following, account for these differences.

      Gender-responsive policies, first and foremost, recognize 
that there are gender-specific needs and modify facility operations, 
supervision, management, programs and services to address them.
      They ensure that all staff who work with women are 
trained in trauma-informed care, understand gender-responsive 
principles and how justice-involved women are different from men, and 
at a minimum, have effective communications and intervention skills.
      These policies influence facility culture so that there 
is a physical environment that is conducive to change (positive 
messages on walls, positive images), an attitude of respect among staff 
and inmates, positive encouragement for family visits and interactions, 
and calming environments (reduced noise level, banging, shouting).
      Practices and procedures are implemented that do not 
(re)traumatize or trigger women's trauma, such as letting women know 
ahead of time what is going to happen during a procedure, telling them 
what is happening during the procedure, and checking in with them after 
the procedure is conducted. Other similar examples include limited use 
of solitary confinement or segregation (which may trigger women), more 
limited use of strip searches (which may be reminiscent of rape), and 
limited or no use of restraints during pregnancy and delivery.
      Gender-responsive risk and needs assessments (such as the 
Women's Risk and Needs Assessment developed by Dr. Pat Van Voorhis and 
colleagues at the University of Cincinnati) should be used to identify 
specific risk factors 1such as past trauma, abuse and anger. Treatment 
programs should be available that address the risks and needs 
identified through these assessments.

    It is critical for the Bureau of Prisons to address the 
unique situation of women in prison when making choices about 
policies and programming for institutions that hold them. In 
addition to the roadmap to system-?wide implementation that 
Washington State offers, the National Resource Center on 
Justice Involved Women--funded by the U.S. Department of 
Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance in partnership with the 
National Institute of Corrections--is an organization that the 
BOP can collaborate with to work for rapid adoption of gender-
responsive policies and programs. Additionally, the Adult and 
Juvenile Female Offenders Network \15\--a national network of 
corrections workers, academics and community practitioners--has 
been working for decades to establish gender-responsive 
policies and programs in American prisons and jails, and its 
Members should prove valuable advisors to the BOP if it wishes 
to fulfill its responsibilities to the women in its custody.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Association on Programs for Female Offenders (APFO), an 
American Correctional Association, available at http://www.ajfo.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One of the biggest needs is to keep these women, many of 
whom are single moms, close to their kids. When I was 
incarcerated at Danbury FPC, I met women who were raising their 
children in the visitors' room during brief visits, fending off 
sexual harassment, and struggling to get a high school 
education so when they got out they stood a chance at 
surviving. I saw women denied necessary medical care, and I saw 
women with mental health issues wait for months to see the one 
psychiatrist who was available for 1,400 women.
    During my time in prison, I was transferred from Danbury to 
the federal Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago (MCC) 
to serve as a witness in a federal trial there. The Chicago MCC 
is 26 stories high and houses approximately 700 men. There were 
approximately 35 women in the female unit there and the 
conditions were abysmal. Federal jails are not intended for 
long-term housing, and thus lack programming, physical plant 
and other acknowledged essentials for a person serving a prison 
sentence, which are intended to hold them accountable and 
rehabilitate them so they can return safely to the community. 
Despite this, people often spend long periods of time locked up 
in federal jails. When I was in the MCC, there was a woman who 
had been held there for two years.
    At the Chicago MCC, women were kept locked on the 12th-
floor unit for many days at a time; access to the library and 
to physical recreation and the outdoor area was sporadic at 
best; no women were allowed to participate in GED programs or 
any educational opportunities; female prisoners were not 
allowed to work and earn money; we had no direct access to any 
medical staff, or in fact any administrative staff; and we were 
largely reliant on a single correctional officer to get any 
concerns addressed. Many women on the unit were severely 
mentally ill. The last two months of my incarceration were 
exponentially more difficult than the first 11 because of the 
conditions in the Chicago MCC, and I have many more resources 
and opportunities than most women incarcerated in federal 
prisons.
    Women in federal custody have less access compared to male 
federal prisoners to important rehabilitative programs like 
UNICOR (vocational training in prison industry programs that 
provide the highest compensation among federal prisoner jobs) 
and the Residential Drug & Alcohol Program (an intensive 
program that cuts a year from a prisoner's sentence).
    Many women have been sent far from their families and 
communities, much further than the BOP's stated parameter of 
500 miles from a prisoner's home.\16\ For a family that lives 
in poverty in New Hampshire, the Bronx or Pennsylvania, a place 
like Aliceville, Alabama, Dublin, California or Waseca, 
Minnesota might as well be the moon in terms of children and 
other family Members being able to visit. The majority of women 
in prison were their children's primary or sole caregiver prior 
to incarceration.\17\ When these women are incarcerated, 
maintaining any semblance of a relationship with their children 
largely depends on regular visitation.\18\ A child's need to 
see and hold his or her mother is one of the most basic human 
needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Federal Bureau of Prisons, Custody and Care: Designations, 
July 30, 2015, available at http://www.bop.gov/inmates/
custody_and_care/designations.jsp.
    \17\ Lauren E. Glaze & Laura M. Maruschak, Parents in Prison and 
Their Minor Children, U.S. Dep't. of Justice, Of Justice Statistics 
Special Report, 4, (2008), available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
content/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf.
    \18\ Susan D. Phillips, The Sentencing Project, Video Visits For 
Children Whose Parents Are incarcerated: In Whose Best Interests? 1-2 
(2012), available at http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/
cc_Video_Visitation_White_Paper.pdf (describing the importance of and 
barriers to visitation of incarcerated parents).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Important things to consider about women in federal custody 
are disconnection from young children and family who rely 
heavily on these mothers prior to incarceration; vastly and 
disproportionately inadequate living conditions compared with 
male prisoners; and, a marked lack of rehabilitative 
programming or work opportunity that is tailored to address 
women's pathways into prison, which is the best way to ensure 
their safe and permanent return home. These realities are 
emblematic of the BOP's indifference to the situation and 
outcomes of female prisoners. The BOP is currently seeking to 
appoint a new Director; a commitment and ability to implement 
gender-responsive policies and programming should be a 
requirement for the job. To fulfill its public safety mission 
and to avoid discriminatory practices, the BOP must adopt 
gender-responsive policies, programs and facility design, 
following the best practices of corrections departments in 
states like Washington and Iowa. At the Washington Corrections 
Center for Women for instance, the Gender Responsiveness Action 
Plan allows female prisoners to attend seminars focusing on 
healthy relationships, safety awareness, health, nutrition, 
handling anger and stress, and goal setting.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Jennifer Sullivan, Female Inmates Treatment is Evolving, The 
Bulletin, November 7, 2013, available at http://www.bendbulletin.com/
news/1262705-151/female-inmates-treatment-is-evolving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The BOP has a legal and moral obligation to ensure that 
time in custody is equitable, safe, and rehabilitative for 
women. In addition, Congress should use all measures available 
to facilitate the BOP's early release of currently incarcerated 
people who are eligible to return to their communities.
    The BOP could exercise greater discretion, granted in the 
Second Chance Act and the First Step Act, to move thousands out 
of federal prison facilities to complete their sentences in 
their communities. In addition to reducing overcrowding, 
utilizing the Second Chance Act and the First Step Act would 
keep incarcerated people closer to their homes, creating 
benefits for prisoners and their communities. They would be 
following the precedent of the U.S. Sentencing Commission's 
2014 decision to reduce the length of time that certain federal 
prisoners are spending in incarceration.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Oversight of 
the Bureau of Prisons Hearing, Liman Statement for the Record, 
November, 12, 2013, available at http://www.lawyale .edu/documents/pdf/
Liman/Senate_Judiciary_Committee_BOP_Oversight_Hearing_ Liman_ 
Statement_for_the_ Record_Nov_ 12_2013.pdf_website.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bottom line is that mass incarceration in America is a 
failed policy experiment, not a legitimate response to violence 
or crime in our communities. Current legislators have a 
responsibility to make our criminal legal system fairer, more 
effective, and more just, and they have an opportunity to do so 
now when public understanding and opinion on these issues has 
changed. There is abundant data and evidence proving we have 
better responses to addiction, mental illness and even violence 
than reliance on prisons and jails.
    There is no population of people where reform can more 
obviously be implemented than women and girls in the criminal 
justice system. Research, case studies, and a host of programs 
and organizations that demonstrate the value and efficacy of 
gender-responsive policies and programs provide the map to 
solutions that do not rely on incarceration. This map is vital 
not just to the thousands of women who currently churn through 
American prisons and jails each year, but to the families and 
communities to which they return. It is long past time for 
Congress to lead the way and make common-sense criminal justice 
policy that reflects smart and humane ideas and values about 
justice and accountability.

    Ms. Bass. Ms. Kajstura.

                  TESTIMONY OF ALEKS KAJSTURA

    Ms. Kajstura. Thank you, Chairwoman Bass, and Ranking 
Member Ratcliffe and Members of the subcommittee, for providing 
me the opportunity to share some data on women's incarceration, 
not only because this is an issue that has been overlooked for 
far too long, but also because women's experiences in the 
criminal justice system serve to highlight the faults of the 
entire system.
    The U.S. incarcerates women at the highest rate in the 
world, so there is a lot of data to dig through, but as I 
outline the basics, I would like you all to keep one fact in 
mind: One in four women who are incarcerated have not been 
convicted. That figure alone demonstrates that we use 
incarceration far too much. Since the 1970s, women's State 
prison populations have grown faster than their male 
counterparts. There are nearly 10 times as many women in State 
prisons now as 40 years ago. Despite this dramatic growth, 
women's incarceration remains an afterthought. In most States, 
women have not benefited from recent efforts to reduce 
incarceration as much as men have.
    There are many complex and interconnected reasons why the 
U.S. is incarcerating women at ever increasing rates. Here are 
a couple of examples: States continue to widen the net of 
criminal justice involvement by criminalizing women's responses 
to gender-based abuse and discrimination. We have heard about 
the expansion of drug conspiracy laws that lead to even minor 
or peripheral roles of women receiving very harsh sentences, 
even more harsh than those in charge of the operation. In terms 
of gender abuse, you have policy changes that led to mandatory 
dual arrests, just simply for fighting back against domestic 
violence. Once caught in the net, there are fewer diversion 
programs available to women.
    In Wyoming, for example, there was a boot camp that allowed 
men to participate in a 6-month program instead of having to 
serve a lengthy sentence, but no similar program is available 
in the State for women, so they face years of incarceration for 
first-time offenses, while their male counterparts can quickly 
return to the community. And then once women are incarcerated, 
they face more and harsher disciplinary sanctions for similar 
behavior when compared to men, and this disciplinary action 
harms women's ability to earn time off the sentence and 
decreases chances of parole.
    The tentacles of mass incarceration have a long reach. 
Women incarcerated in jails and prisons account for just a 
small percentage of women under some form of correctional 
control.
    Probation accounts for the majority of women under 
correctional control, and is often billed as an alternative to 
incarceration, but compliance with restrictive probation terms 
is particularly difficult for women, it often sets us up to 
fail. For example, probation comes with mandatory monthly fees, 
which women are in the worst position to afford. Failing to pay 
these fees alone is often a violation of probation. Childcare 
duties further complicate compliance, because probation 
requirements often include travel to mandatory meetings, or 
having to get advanced permission for an emergency school pick-
up, or advanced permission for an emergency doctor's visits.
    Ongoing struggles with mental health and substance abuse 
disorders, which affect women in jails far more than men, 
require additional support rather than being viewed as 
punishment--rather than being punished as a failure of 
probation. Even as incarceration rates drop, women's 
incarceration continues to grow; getting hard data is the 
obvious next step for policy change. You would think that 
knowing how many women are locked up, and where, and why, would 
be easy; after all, this is a population that is literally 
counted multiple times a day, but there is an astounding lack 
of data on incarceration.
    I set out to give a complete picture of women's 
incarceration in my report, Women's Mass Incarceration: The 
Whole Pie, and I had to weave together data scattered across 
incompatible government reports and surveys.
    For example, the last time the Bureau of Justice Statistics 
published a comprehensive report on incarcerated women, it was 
1999, that is 20 years ago. Since then, data on incarcerated 
women have been available piecemeal scattered throughout BJS 
publications. Even worse, BJS has stopped even collecting some 
data on women incarcerated, much less publishing it.
    When our statistical agencies are blindfolded, the 
policymakers are too. Having, accurate, timely data is an 
important part of ending mass incarceration of women. But quite 
frankly, there is such vast room for improvement in so many 
areas that we can wait for data collections to catch up while 
we take commonsense action today.
    [The statement of Ms. Kajstura follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Bass. Thank you. Ms. Onwuka.

                TESTIMONY OF PATRICE LEE ONWUKA

    Ms. Onwuka. Good morning. Thank you, Chair Bass, thank you 
Ranking Member Ratcliffe.
    I work with the Independent Women's Forum and we are an 
educational organization committed to increasing the number of 
women who value free markets and personal liberty. We advance 
policies that enhance people's freedoms, and choices, and 
opportunities. And so, my focus specifically, my work focuses 
on expanding opportunity for women. This subject is something 
that is really important to us. So, this is truly a great time 
of opportunity for women. We know that we have record low 
unemployment rates. Over 1,800 new businesses were started by 
women each day from 2017 to 2018. Firm's owned by black, or 
women of color, have triple digit growth over the past decade. 
Yes, a criminal background lobs too many women out of 
opportunity and economic mobility. Work is a critical component 
to the successful transition from the criminal justice system 
back into society.
    So, I am encouraged by the historic, bipartisan First Step 
Act that was passed and signed into law last year. It laid it a 
foundation, but we know there is more to do for women. 
Conversations like today remind us that the left and the right 
are committed to helping every American achieve their right to 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    Organizations across the philosophical spectrum are engaged 
in criminal justice efforts, and for different reasons. I think 
we can all agree that committing a crime and paying her debt to 
society should not preclude a woman from the pursuit of a 
better future. It is not just her future, but the future of her 
children, her family, her community that depend on her 
successful transition back into society. It all starts with so 
many women who are in the criminal justice system.
    You have heard the statistics, they are staggering. What is 
interesting is that we saw the replacement of judicial 
discretion with one-size-fits-all sentencing mandates, landing 
a lot of low level, nonviolent offenders in Federal prisons for 
longer periods of time, than otherwise they might have been 
given, and particularly because there are alternatives to 
serving time.
    Now that not only impacted women, but their families. As a 
result, you have more women are likely to have served as a 
primary caregiver to children prior to entering prison and have 
plans to return upon release. We know that children whose 
parents are involved in the justice system, they face a host of 
challenges and difficulties. Incarceration also forces families 
deeper into poverty and debt. The burden falls on family 
Members, society, and yes, us taxpayers.
    The family bond, especially with their children, often 
becomes a motivating factor for women not to return to crime. 
So effective criminal justice requires respect for the dignity 
of all people, and the successful means towards rehabilitation.
    Now while serving time, women face special challenges some 
of the panelists have talked about this, from general health 
and wellness to ongoing gynecological care and prenatal care if 
they are pregnant. They require separate facilities for 
showering and using the toilet. Serving a criminal sentence, 
though, should not mean that female inmates serve in 
dehumanizing, unsanitary, unsafe, or unhealthy conditions.
    Some level of privacy from male guards is a reasonable 
expectation and can protect female prisoners, many of whom are 
experienced sexual violence. Incarcerated pregnant women are 
the most vulnerable.
    Unfortunately, the justice system really considers the 
special needs of this population. Thankfully, this shackling of 
women is a practice has been ended by law because of the risk 
it poses to moms and babies. Now as a mother of a 7-month baby 
boy, this is especially close to my heart.
    Ongoing physical and mental health care should not be 
forgotten. When it is time for a woman to return--to be 
released from prison, that is not the moment to begin thinking 
about what she is going to do afterwards. We know that are 
women's recidivism rates are similarly troubling to those of 
men, about one-quarter of women released from prison have an 
arrest for a new crime within 6 months, one-third within a 
year, and two-thirds 5 years out.
    So training, technical educational opportunities, including 
those tied to the faith community, can be assets in the 
rehabilitation reentry process. There is evidence these 
programs work. The First Step Act encourage rehabilitation 
programs offers and offer significant incentives to inmates to 
participate in recidivism reduction programs. A strong economy 
is an ally in providing women opportunities. Where government 
puts up roadblocks to opportunity, the government needs to 
remove them. We have seen that occupational licenses have been 
a tremendous hindrance for women who simply want to work. That 
is a place we can start, and we are seeing States take some 
action there. The criminal justice system is an area where we 
all believe that smart reforms can help women who want to be 
productive Members of society, so I look forward to today's 
discussion.
    [The statement of Ms. Onwuka follows:]

                    STATEMENT OF MS. ONWUKA

    Chairman Bass, Ranking Member Ratcliffe, and Members of the 
Committee thank you for inviting me to appear today.
    My name is Patrice Onwuka, and I am a senior policy analyst 
at the Independent Women's Forum. We are a nonprofit 
organization, committed to increasing the number of women who 
value free markets and personal liberty. We advance policies 
that enhance people's freedom, choices, and opportunities. My 
work focuses on expanding opportunity for women.
    There's no better time to talk about women and opportunity 
than today.
    As of June, we are at a near record-low unemployment rate 
for women of 3.3 percent. There are more than 11 million women-
owned businesses. Over 1,800 new small businesses started each 
day on average from 2017 to 2018. Firms owned by women of color 
have had triple-digit growth over the past decade. We graduate 
more women from college today than men and in scores of 
industries, women outearn men.
    Because of a strong economy and over 7 million unfilled 
positions, employers are considering for employment applicants 
whom they would have passed on in the past. That includes 
returning citizens and people who have criminal records. This 
is good news for this community that struggles with obtaining 
steady employment, a key factor determining whether they will 
become a productive citizen or return to prison.
    Women in the justice system are also benefiting from 
greater opportunity, but unfortunately, they have been left out 
of the conversation of criminal justice reform. I'm glad 
today's hearing will focus on their unique issues and concerns,
    The number of women in prison has increased by more than 
700 percent since 1980. As a nation, we are home to around 30 
percent of the world's incarcerated women.
    Lawmakers on the left and the right recognize that in the 
past we may have been tough on crime--and needed to be. Today, 
the shift to be smart on crime provides a chance to reform laws 
that have yielded punishments which were out of whack with the 
crime or to create policies that help women prepare for life 
after serving time.

                  Over Incarceration of Women

    Judges have enjoyed discretion in weighing the merits of 
cases and determining the best punishment for crimes committed 
by individuals.
    Our justice system changed significantly in the 1970s and 
1980s when Congress and State legislatures implemented 
mandatory sentencing for drug crimes with the intention of 
attacking the drug trade and deterring people from drug use. 
Understandably, the spread of drugs warranted a strong 
response. Unfortunately, limiting judicial discretion and 
imposing inflexible punishments led to skyrocketing 
incarceration rates. There were just 13,000 incarcerated women 
in 1980 and that swelled to more than 110,000 women in 2016. 
The federal female prison population has risen twice as fast as 
the male population. Some 1.3 million women are under the 
supervision of our criminal justice system.
    Women are more likely to commit property crimes and drug 
crimes and offenses than men. In State prisons, for example, 25 
percent of women in prison have been convicted of a drug 
offense, compared to 14 percent of men in prison.
    Because of sentencing changes, low-level, non-violent 
offenders landed in federal prisons for longer periods of time, 
when otherwise, they might have been given parole or sent to 
diversion programs.
    Conservative and liberal lawmakers are trying to address 
the unintended consequences of a heavy-handed approach to 
sentencing.
    The bipartisan First Step Act passed and signed into law by 
President Donald Trump in December 2018, reduced or reformed 
several federal mandatory minimum laws that, prospectively, 
will reduce unjustly harsh sentences, restore discretion to 
judges, and allow for resentencing.
    In 2019, over a dozen female inmates (2 percent of 1,050 
federal inmates) received reduced sentences as a result of 
these changes. Going forward, likely more women will end up 
serving fairer sentences or may be given alternatives to 
sentencing such as community-based diversion programs, 
rehabilitation for addiction, treatment for mental illness, 
paying restitution, or community service.
    Alternatives to imprisonment can rehabilitate the offender, 
reduce prison and jail costs, and prevent additional crimes 
from occurring in the future. Victims of crimes are helped, 
communities are helped, and individuals are helped.
    Americans overwhelmingly support alternatives to 
sentencing: 77 percent of adults believe that alternatives to 
incarceration should be used often or sometimes.
    Criminal justice reforms should not eliminate punishments 
for offenders, but they offer a chance to ensure that 
punishments fit the crimes. Effective punishments can reduce 
the likelihood that a woman recidivates. Over 40 percent of all 
people leaving prison will re-offend and be back in prison 
within three years of their release.
    By addressing underlying causes of crime such as addiction 
or mental illness, we may help people from reoffending. That is 
good for families, who don't have to lose moms and dads for 
years at a time. It also allows women to keep working to earn 
income, pay taxes, and support their families. That truly gives 
people a chance at a better life.

                  Dignity for Women in Prison

    Women have unique health and wellness needs that men do not 
have and ones that do not disappear when they serve time in 
prison. Women need on-going gynecological care and prenatal 
care if they are pregnant. Women have menstrual cycles that 
demand hygiene products such as menstrual pads and tampons. 
They require separate facilities for showering and using the 
toilet.
    Serving a criminal sentence should not mean that female 
inmates serve in dehumanizing, unsanitary, unsafe, or unhealthy 
conditions. Nor should they have to pay for products that they 
cannot afford.
    If women are pregnant, it is especially important for both 
the health of the mother and the baby that their prenatal care 
is provided.
    As a mother of a seven-month-old, I can only imagine how 
challenging it would be to be restrained while pregnant and 
especially during labor and delivery. Although 2,000 births 
occur to women in custody, the stories of miscarriages that 
follow from shackled inmates falling and hurting themselves 
remind us why this practice was important to end.
    These are two areas where progress has been achieved on the 
federal and State levels. The First Step Act directed the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons to make feminine hygiene products 
available to prisoners for free. It also prohibits the use of 
restraints on pregnant women in federal prisons unless there 
are good reasons for her to be restrained, such as being a 
flight risk or a healthcare professional determines the use of 
restraints is necessary for treatment.
    There are still areas for more to be done at the federal 
level to provide dignity for women inmates. It's reasonable for 
women to have privacy from male correctional officers when they 
are undressed in showers, bathrooms, and dressing rooms or 
being searched. States are adopting such measures like 
Louisiana, which passed reforms to preclude male correctional 
officers from conducting pat-down searches.
    These are expectations that transcend partisanship and 
underscore that even behind bars, women should be treated with 
dignity.

                Removing Barriers to Opportunity

    We are living through an impressive time for women in the 
labor force. The tight job market today is also encouraging 
employers to hire individuals that they would not have 
considered before such as those with a criminal record. Some 
private employers are proactively removing questions about 
criminal pasts from employment applications.
    Yet, too many women are locked out of the economic 
recovery, the labor force, and the prospect of economic 
mobility because of their criminal background. From sentencing 
to second chances, women who desire to make amends, better 
themselves, and become productive citizens face government-
imposed barriers to achieving opportunity.
    Once a woman leaves incarceration, she needs to work. 
Former inmates who find steady employment are less likely to 
return to crime. However, women with low educational levels and 
who lack a steady employment history and vocational skills face 
difficulty finding employment.
    The government can help women gain the skills, education, 
and training that they need to secure work opportunities 
beginning while serving their time.
    Vocational training and career technical education programs 
teach inmates employment skills or job-specific skills with the 
goal of reducing the risk of recidivating.
    The First Step Act encouraged rehabilitation programs and 
offers significant incentives to inmates who participate in 
recidivism reduction programs.
    Congress and states should explore and assess the 
effectiveness of such programs to scale what works and learn 
what doesn't work.

                     Occupational Licensure

    Occupational licenses are another barrier of entry for 
those with a criminal record. Occupational licenses are 
government ``permission slips'' to work in a vocation. Workers 
have to satisfy state-level requirements of education and 
training at their own expense.
    Occupational licensure has expanded significantly over the 
last five decades increasing from just 5 percent of the 
workforce in 1950 to 20 percent in 2000.
    There are hundreds of occupations that require licensure 
and many of them are vocations that women work in: Manicurists, 
cosmetologists, makeup artists, preschool teachers, shampooers, 
interior designers, florists, hair braiders, and tax preparers. 
These can be low- and middle-income vocations where individuals 
can work for employers or be entrepreneurs.
    Occupational licensure creates barriers to work because 
they often require higher levels of educational attainment and 
skills that can be costly and take a long time to secure. The 
qualifications may be unnecessary or unrelated to the actual 
vocation. Many occupational licenses are not portable across 
State lines. Most concerning, many states have ``good 
character'' standards that prohibit ex-offenders from ever 
obtaining a license.
    A study by an Arizona State University researcher found 
that states with the heaviest occupational licensing burdens 
saw an average increase of over 9 percent in new-crime 
recidivism rates over a three-year period. Conversely, states 
with the lowest burdens and no character provisions saw an 
average decline of nearly 2.5 percent in the recidivism rate.
    Reforming occupational licenses are an important key to 
reducing recidivism. This is a bipartisan area of concern; the 
Obama Administration released a report calling for occupational 
licensing reforms. It's encouraging to see states eliminate 
licensing requirements or good character provisions.
    Preparing women for life after prison will help them settle 
into a productive lifestyle and prevent them from returning to 
the behaviors that led to their crimes.
    The criminal justice system is an area where we believe 
that smart reforms can help women who are breadwinners for 
households where someone is serving time or who have themselves 
been in the justice system and want to be productive Members of 
society.
    It's exciting to see criminal justice reforms at the State 
and federal level deliver transformational impact for women and 
by extension their families and communities.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning to 
discuss these issues of importance to women in society. I 
welcome any questions you may have.

    Ms. Bass. Thank you. I want to thank all the witnesses for 
your testimony today. We will now proceed under the 5-minute 
Rule with questions. I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Shank, I did not understand why you were indicted. You 
said that you were indicted, it sounded like years after your 
partner, who abused you, passed away. You were originally--
could you please go through the sequence again and explain why 
you were indicted?
    Ms. Shank. Absolutely. It tends to be a little confusing 
sometimes. The person that I was dating was murdered, like I 
had mentioned, in 2002. I was initially charged with conspiracy 
in 2002. I received a letter from my attorney 3 months after 
the initial charge stated that my case had been dismissed.
    Ms. Bass. Your conspiracy was?
    Ms. Shank. Drug-related conspiracy for a drug crime.
    Ms. Bass. So, you conspired to sell the drugs, even though 
you were locked in the house against your will?
    Ms. Shank. I lived in the home. So, I like I said, I moved 
on with my life. I had married and had children. Then in 2007, 
they knocked on my door with an indictment and charged me with 
conspiracy. Not only did I get charged with conspiracy, but I 
also received four felonies. I was charged with the possession 
with intention to distribute cocaine, crack and marijuana, 
along with the conspiracy charges, and a two-point gun 
enhancement, based that I lived in the home.
    Ms. Bass. So, you were indicted 5 years after the drug 
dealer died?
    Ms. Shank. Yes.
    Ms. Bass. Years after you were originally arrested?
    Ms. Shank. Yes.
    Ms. Bass. That is crazy. After you were released, I wanted 
to know what happened with your children. Who took care of your 
children while you were incarcerated?
    Ms. Shank. Their father.
    Ms. Bass. Their father took care of the children. After you 
got out, did you get custody of your children?
    Ms. Shank. Absolutely. Three weeks after I got out, I went 
down with their dad and I have joint custody of my daughters 
now. He is a wonderful man, and father, a wonderful father. He 
is never kept the children from me. He was very helpful in 
keeping my relationship with them.
    Ms. Bass. How much time did you serve?
    Ms. Shank. Nine years.
    Ms. Bass. So, how old are your children?
    Ms. Shank. Autumn is 15, Ava is 13, and Annalise is 11.
    Ms. Bass. So, from what years to when, when you went in, 
they were how old?
    Ms. Shank. 4, 2, and 6 weeks old.
    Ms. Bass. When you were released, they were how old?
    Ms. Shank. 13, 11, and 9.
    Ms. Bass. Were you able to stay in touch with them? Didn't 
you say for a while you were close to them, but then you were 
transferred away?
    Ms. Shank. Yes. Initially, I was in Pekin, Illinois, and I 
was able to see them in my first 3 years for about every 6 
weeks. I was able to maintain some type of connection with them 
being so small. But, the prison had closed for women, and I was 
transferred with 40 other women to Coleman, Florida.
    Ms. Bass. Did anybody take into consideration the fact that 
you would not be able to be in touch with your family if you 
moved?
    Ms. Shank. There was no consideration for anybody. There 
was 240 women that were scattered all across the country. Pekin 
was the closest prison for all the women there. So, women ended 
up in California, Texas, Florida.
    Ms. Bass. I am sorry to interrupt you. I was concerned 
about my time. The one thing that is said about women that are 
incarcerated different than men is that women don't receive 
visits. Women visit men in prison, men don't visit women in 
prison. I wanted to know from Ms. Shank and Ms. Kerman, was 
that your experience? Is that what you saw when you were in 
prison or is that not accurate?
    Ms. Shank. Absolutely. Women would get visits, and they 
would be very sparse as far as people visiting their families. 
I mean, you get a lot of grandmothers bringing kids, 
caregivers.
    Ms. Bass. How many and how often did you see women whose 
children were in foster care while they were--
    Ms. Shank. Often. I mean, I would talk to a lot of women, I 
was there for 9 years, so I spoke with many women over the 
years that would lose their children, custody of their 
children.
    Ms. Bass. Parental rights would be terminated if they were 
incarcerated too long?
    Ms. Shank. Yes, absolutely.
    Ms. Bass. Ms. Kerman, what was your experience in seeing, 
did you see women receive visits? Did you know women who lost 
their children? Did you know women who were in foster care?
    Ms. Kerman. Thank you, Chair Bass. I feel that the 
relationship between mothers and children is the single most 
important factor of incarceration of women. I was not a mother 
when I was incarcerated. I am now. I think about that all the 
time. I thought about it all the time when I was locked up. I 
was very, very lucky, I was serving time in Connecticut and a 
resident of New York City, so for many people it was easy to 
visit me. Since then, the facility in Danbury has been 
repurposed, and a huge percentage of women who were 
incarcerated there have also been transferred far away from 
their families.
    What would happen is that you would see women my bunkmate 
never received a visit the entire time we bunked together. She 
had two children. Then, there were certain families that were 
fortunate enough to be able to be up in the visiting room with 
some frequency.
    Ms. Bass. I am going to run out of time. I just wondered if 
anybody can comment on women that they saw who became pregnant 
while they were incarcerated?
    Ms. Shank. There was a woman in Florida who became pregnant 
by an officer while I was incarcerated. That is something that 
doesn't get talked enough about, the safety of women with 
officers who are there.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you. Mr. Ratcliffe.
    Mr. Ratcliffe. I thank the chair.
    Ms. Onwuka, you highlighted in your testimony the 
importance of dignity for women in prison. I agree with you: 
This certainly should not be a partisan issue. We should all be 
able to address in the spirit of bipartisanship, I think we 
can, the needs of women, girls in the criminal justice system.
    Some of those issues, as you pointed out, were addressed in 
the First Step Act, which President Trump signed into law late 
last year, but you mentioned, also, that there are still areas 
for more to be done at the Federal level to provide dignity for 
women inmates. So, can you elaborate on those additional areas 
it for improvement? Specifically, I am interested if you know 
any States that have taken action in those specific areas? Then 
if time is permitting, I would like to get the perspective of 
Ms. Shank and Ms. Kerman, given your experiences.
    Ms. Onwuka. Thank you. So actually, the comments of Ms. 
Cynthia Shank just now touch on one of those, the male prison 
guards area. I mentioned I think it is reasonable for women to 
have some expectation of privacy, particularly when they are 
changing, they are undressing, they are showering. We know that 
female prisoners are vulnerable, and a lot of them have 
unfortunately experienced sexual violence in the past.
    So, when you have a situation where, perhaps, a male 
correctional officer enters into a female cell, and she is 
changing, she may protest, and say, Can I have some privacy? A 
verbal altercation could ensue. This could be triggering for 
that woman behind bars, and it could lead to a place that she 
doesn't want to go, and you don't want to have her being.
    So, I think the American--there are a couple of 
conservative organizations and progressive organizations that 
have come together to talk about why during incarceration, it 
is reasonable that male guards shouldn't be present when a 
woman is strip-searched. They shouldn't be supervising women 
who are in showers and other sensitive areas. Even the idea of 
forced and inappropriate inspections, these things are 
counterproductive to rehabilitating a woman behind bars.
    So, I think there is an area there for understanding what 
is it? What happens when male guards are present? What are 
potential guidelines or guardrails that should be put in place 
between men and women in sensitive areas? We understand there 
are other places where it makes sense to have that happen.
    Another area that I think is concerning for pregnant women, 
we did talk about the shackling of women being ended, but I 
think the continued care for women who had a baby afterwards is 
really important.
    Some researchers found that correctional facilities tend to 
fail to provide physician-recommended standards of care for 
pregnant women, and that places women's health and the health 
of the child at risk, even after a woman has had a baby. I know 
very many women, who have had children, understand that there 
is an emotional toll that is taken. So, when you are denied 
medical care, or you don't have adequate medical care, even 
mental healthcare that may be needed postpartum. I think those 
are areas where you both need some guidance from obstetricians 
and gynecological experts on what kind of care is actually 
needed, and how Federal prisons can provide that care.
    Then in terms of States, I would have to do a deeper dive, 
I do know States like Louisiana, a lot of red conservative 
States have actually been implementing some of these at the 
State level. Texas is another great place that has implemented 
some changes in terms of Federal prisons, and so happy to 
provide some additional research at another time.
    Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you.
    Ms. Shank and Ms. Kerman, do you want to add to that? Any 
perspective that you want to provide on those issues of dignity 
for women, areas that we could focus on here?
    Ms. Shank. Absolutely. The guard-to-female situation is 
something I don't speak about often, primarily because my 
children are usually in the room when I go and speak, but it is 
very prevalent, the guard and inmate relationships that happen 
in prisons. I never felt safe changing; guards know your 
routines and if they want to single you out, they will. It is 
very common for an officer to single somebody out.
    Ms. Bass. Would the witness yield for a minute? When you 
say guard-to-prisoner relationships, are these consensual, or 
are you describing rape?
    Ms. Shank. Well, when you put into perspective somebody who 
is over you who is in charge of you, they are consensual to the 
extent where you ask the inmates are there, but they are also 
vulnerable. These are their caregivers, these are people that 
are over them, they are authority over them, so while they are 
consensual relationships that I am aware of, to me, there is a 
level of not being consensual.
    Ms. Bass. Power.
    Ms. Shank. Power, absolutely. They wield that power. I 
never had a relationship with an officer, but I can tell you 
that officers would know when I would shower, and they would 
walk by my room, they would enter my room when I was getting 
dressed frequently. It happened at every prison that I was at. 
I was at three different places, and this is just my story. I 
mean, you can talk to any one of those women, and they will all 
tell you it was very common to know that this officer was in a 
relationship with that inmate, or it was just something that 
happened all the time.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you.
    Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you.
    Ms. Bass. Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Ms. Kerman, your time in custody, you observed 
other women who were pregnant, I assume. You observed women who 
were pregnant gave birth while incarcerated? Can you describe 
what you observed?
    Ms. Kerman. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. I will never forget the 
first day in prison for a variety of reasons, but one of the 
things that I remember so clearly after being processed in by 
correctional officers and transformed into 11187424, it was 
February, I was being escorted up to the unit where I would 
live, to the building that would house me, and there were a 
group of women standing outside the building. There was a woman 
who was very visibly pregnant. I learned that she was 8 months 
pregnant, and I remember just being so confused when I saw her. 
I was literally, like, this must be a mistake. It had never 
occurred to me that there would be pregnant women in prison.
    I am still deeply confused by that. I am deeply troubled by 
the fact that so many women enter prison, and, of course, they 
have gone through an entire judicial process prior to 
incarceration, and that our choice as a society is to force 
them to go through their pregnancy and childbirth while under 
custody in a setting, as Ms. Onwuka has pointed out, that is 
not appropriate for pregnant
people.
    That particular young woman that I saw went into labor 
shortly thereafter, just a few weeks later, she went into 
labor. She was the first person I had ever seen in labor. She 
labored for about 12 hours there in the prison, occasionally 
checked on by staff, but largely assisted by the other women.
    Mr. Nadler. In a hospital unit?
    Ms. Kerman. Finally, after about 12 hours, they took her 
out to the local hospital, which is where she gave birth. She 
was then immediately returned to the prison postpartum in 
recovery from having given birth, but also incredibly drawn, 
sad and devastated, because she had been separated from her 
infant, and all the biology that we know tells us that babies 
and mothers need to be together for months, for years really.
    Certainly, that young lady who was serving an 18-month 
sentence for a low-level drug offense, could have stayed in the 
community to give birth. She was from rural Maine, and it was 
very lucky that her family was able to take the baby, and it 
was very lucky that they were occasionally able to make the 8-
hour drive down for her to see the baby.
    It was also very lucky that she was going home soon, 
because not everyone is that fortunate. The most important 
thing from my point of view that we think about pregnancy is 
reproductive rights, freedom, and motherhood when we think 
about women in the criminal justice system.
    Mr. Nadler. Let me ask that the video can clip from the 
Orange is the New Black which displays this heart-wrenching 
moment.
    Ms. Kerman. Let me quickly explain that this depicts the 
return of a prisoner immediately after giving birth.
    [Video shown.]
    Mr. Nadler. How long after giving birth was she returned to 
the prison?
    Ms. Kerman. The next day. She had a regular and 
uncomplicated birth. So, as soon as she could be medically 
discharged from the hospital, she was brought to prison.
    Mr. Nadler. Let me ask in the few seconds I have left, Ms. 
Shank. I believe the mandatory minimum sentencing laws are 
unjust for individuals and harmful to our communities and 
society. Can you tell us something about sentencing reform, any 
particular reforms you think would address issues specific to 
women?
    Ms. Shank. That is a good question. Alternatives to 
sentencing? Is that what you are asking?
    Mr. Nadler. Well, alternatives to mandatory sentencing. 
Whatever you--
    Ms. Shank. I mean, I think we need to give the discretion 
back to the judges, they need to be able to do their job. I 
think if they are allowed, if we take away mandatory minimum 
sentencing and allow them to sentence people on an individual 
basis, I think that would be more productive. I think we 
wouldn't have such an overload of people in prison, just kind 
of cut and dry, saying Okay, this is a category that you fall 
in, you go this way, you go right. I think it needs to be 
individual. I think you need to base--everybody's story is 
different; everybody's circumstances are different. I think the 
judge needs to be allowed to make that decision.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you very much, my time has expired.
    Ms. Bass. Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Ms. Onwuka, 
if I could, you had mentioned in your testimony programs 
connected to the faith community, could you kind of expound 
upon that what have been your interactions, or your experience 
relative to faith-based programs in prisons, women's prisons, 
or men's for that matter?
    Ms. Onwuka. Sure. Thank you so much. I think the critical 
aspect of rehabilitation for many people behind bars has been 
faith, and the ability for those people to be connected to 
justice and restoration on a personal sense of their faith and 
their guiding beliefs. Part of that as you have seen some 
pretty successful programs that are faith-based that have 
actually been very helpful in achieving that.
    So, prison programs that I have seen very effective, the 
first one that comes to mind is PEP. In general, you have seen 
prisoners who participate in job training and educational 
programs; they are less likely to recidivate, and they are more 
likely to avoid reincarceration afterwards. The PEP program, 
which is the Prison Entrepreneurship Program, I believe it is 
Texas-based, has been a tremendous example of kind of faith-
based, but also just private organization going in there and 
providing prisoners with the skills that they need, 
particularly around entrepreneurship.
    I like entrepreneurship because it is one of those areas 
where individuals who have a criminal record, for example, can 
actually start their own shop, hang their own shingle. I 
mentioned the statistic that 1,821 women, the new businesses 
were started each day in 2007 to 2018 because people were able 
to start those businesses that they want to do. So, PEP is a 
really great example of a program that works in the State 
level, and can be scaled nationally.
    Ms. Onwuka. When it comes to other faith-based programs 
that reduce recidivism, I think there are some other programs 
out there. Prison Fellowship is another great one, national 
Christian nonprofit serving prisoners. It was launched in, 
again, Texas. It is one of those places that has been a great 
launching pad for some of these programs.
    I will give you some statistics from their success. 
According to a study by the Texas Policy Council, only 8 
percent of the participants returned to prison within 2 years 
who completed the program that they provided compared to 20 
percent of offenders who were eligible for the program but 
elected not to participate.
    So, I think those are two examples of good programs, 
entrepreneurship related that could be helpful.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
    The next question I will ask any of the panel Members who 
might like to comment until I run out of time. Most prisoners, 
men or women, are going to get out some day, and even those 
that have some form of homicide often times are going to get 
out. Those that have job skills at the Federal level we have 
prison industries. I used to work with, in the city of 
Cincinnati when I was on city council and as a county 
commissioner, programs that encourage people to work, and we 
had two-for-one programs. For every day you were out doing 
something on a work crew, you got 2 days off your sentence, for 
example.
    Relative to trying to get a skill that when the person gets 
out, that they could put actually into use, also making your 
time in prison perhaps pass more quickly, if that is possible, 
do you have any examples or programs that you think may have 
worked where you were at or an example where it doesn't work? 
Ms. Shank?
    Ms. Shank. One of the things that is very rarely offered in 
the Federal system, in the prisons that I was at, were any kind 
of programs whatsoever. There is the lack of program that we 
should be talking about. Each place that I was at, there was 
one program that would have been like a computer program. I was 
able to do that. That was the only program that I was able to 
do.
    I did in Coleman, Florida, get my CDL. Have I driven a big 
rig since? No. It is something oriented towards men. There is a 
lack of programs. Also, any kind of programming that you do, 
there is a list you have to get on to get into this class.
    Now, for me having a 15-year sentence, every class that I 
applied for, anybody who comes in after me and has a shorter 
sentence will be ahead of me on the list. So, guess how many 
programs I was able to do? Hardly any, because I would be moved 
back down the list because somebody with 2 years and is about 
to get out, would be able to do it. Whether it was a reentry 
programs, whether it is any other kind of programs, there is 
not enough programming in the system.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Kerman. Cindy is correct. The Federal Bureau of Prisons 
is particularly egregious in terms of very limited 
rehabilitative programming or restorative programming. She 
draws a good comparison or a good point that many of the 
programs, the limited programs that are available, are 
completely designed for men.
    Ms. Onwuka points out a wonderful program, the PEP program 
in Texas. Unfortunately, that is only available to men. Women 
are not able to participate in Texas.
    There is an amazing program called Inmates to 
Entrepreneurs, which is based out of North Carolina but 
operates in other places, which does work with women, both 
incarcerated women and women who have returned to the 
community.
    Mr. Chabot should know that in our State of Ohio at the 
Ohio Reformatory for Women, which is a State facility, there is 
a tremendous program called Tapestry, which has been operating 
for 25 years, which is a recovery program for women with 
substance use disorder, but it does have a faith-based 
component.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you.
    Ms. Kerman. It is remarkably successful and operates a 
network of graduates, 800 women who have returned to the 
community. Of course, to this point is available to only a tiny 
percentage of women.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you. We are going to need to move on.
    Ms. Bass. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much for holding this 
hearing and to you and the Ranking Member.
    It is clear that as we look at this set of facts, emotion, 
passion, that there is much work to do to build on what we have 
done in this committee, prison reform first steps, sentencing 
reduction, much work to do as it relates to women. This 
testimony has given us sort of the launching pad to be able to 
do so.
    We hope to introduce soon the End Racial Profiling, which 
certainly overlaps some of the reasons why women of color are 
in. I know that the idea of conspiracy on drugs is something 
that occurs with the man and the woman that is in on the 
conspiracy charge. We see that all the time. We must address 
that, and I look forward to looking specifically at those 
issues.
    Let me quickly say that one of my constituents, Dr. Roe, 
was not incarcerated but wearing a jumper coming from Jamaica, 
West Indies, an African American woman, was forced to put a 
blanket on to get on an airplane from the Caribbean, which is 
where people come for fun and play. So, we know that it 
permeates through LGBTQ and others, and so we look forward to 
doing that legislation.
    I want to focus, if I could, Ms. McCurdy, on this question. 
African American women are twice the rate of imprisonment for 
White women, Hispanic 1.4 times. My time is short. Can you just 
give a quick reason why you believe--and I want to ask some 
other questions to Ms. Shank and others--as quick reasons why 
you see that happening?
    Ms. McCurdy. Well, I think it is--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you for your work.
    Ms. McCurdy. No problem. It is important for this 
Subcommittee to focus on the fact and I think through all our 
testimony we have talked about it, but I just want to say it 
out loud, that some of the major reasons why women are ending 
up incarcerated is because they are traumatized and they have 
experienced trauma, whether it is physical abuse, sexual abuse, 
witnessing a violence in their communities, as well as they are 
caught in a cycle of poverty.
    So, until we address those concerns and we have real gender 
responsive programming that addresses the trauma that women 
have experienced--and men, but today we are talking about 
women--we are kind of spinning our wheels at this. Studies have 
said--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you think women of color are caught up 
in those elements as well as Anglo women and others?
    Ms. McCurdy. Absolutely. Absolutely.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I need to move--I just wanted to get that 
basic understanding of the reason. Thank you so very much.
    Ms. Shank, I have legislation moving through the Congress, 
unfortunately, it is stuck in the United States Senate--that 
deals with the birth of babies while incarcerated. You have 
given me the, as I say, the launch to add the children aspect, 
but it is to allow the mother to keep the baby. In some 
instances, they are incarcerated, and to keep the baby while 
incarcerated in a separate area and to nurture that child for 6 
months.
    Now, there are also options in the community for low 
offenses. We want to look at that. I want you to comment, if 
you will, on how powerful it would be if that scene where the 
woman would be coming back with her baby to a certain safe 
place, clean, orderly, baby nursery type, where those mothers 
could stay while they were incarcerated.
    Ms. Shank. I could barely watch that scene because it is 
very real. I had to turn away because it made me cry. It means 
everything if a mother could stay with her child. I don't know 
that to coming back to a nursery type situation without your 
child is going to do any good.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Right. That is what I am saying. So, you 
come with the baby?
    Ms. Shank. You have to come with the baby.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Right. Absolutely.
    Ms. Shank. You have to be able to be with the baby.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. That is what I was saying.
    Ms. Shank. It has to be able to--sorry. That must be able 
to happen. That is necessary, not only for the mother's sanity 
and well-being, but for the child as well. We have to remember 
that I am an adult, and I accepted the consequences of my 
sentencing, but my children were the innocent victims in this, 
and that is who we have to focus on. There is nothing available 
for children, even when I put my daughters in play therapy, 
they had to go to grief counseling. That was the therapy that 
they went to.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, may I add that we are now, with your 
testimony, believe that we should now look at that piece--
    Ms. Shank. Absolutely.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. --that helps mothers be together with 
their children, frequent visits--we are thinking of how we 
actually can do that, and you put a face on it.
    Ms. Shank. Frequent visits and also the type of visit. If 
you could allow more of a play-type situation instead of having 
your children having to sit in a chair and not be able to get 
up or something other than playing in a cement slab with no 
toys, really very limited things that you are playing with.
    I created costumes with my children out of toilet paper 
when they came to visit me for Halloween. A mother will do 
anything that they can to make their child happy, but if there 
is not even anything there for them to be able to do that, I 
mean, our resources are very limited. You just must be able to 
offer them something to be able to bring that child some form 
of happiness and some form of connection with that child.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. That should be a part of our reformation 
for women.
    Ms. Shank. It should be part of the visits. Yeah. It should 
be part of rehabilitation, strengthening those family bonds. It 
is what keeps them together.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much.
    Ms. Bass. Mrs. Lesko.
    Mrs. Lesko. Well, I want to thank you, Madam Chair. This 
has been a very interesting committee, so thank you for doing a 
hearing.
    I want to say to Ms. Shank, thank you for sharing your 
story. I am glad that you, after 9 years got clemency and you 
are getting your life back together.
    All of you, thank you for sharing your stories.
    I do have a question, and I am not sure who to ask of it, 
but in Arizona, I am from Arizona, we worked on sentencing 
reform. I think this is a bipartisan issue, quite frankly, both 
conservative groups and nonconservative groups, or I don't know 
if you call it liberal or whatever, agree on this issue that 
there is a problem.
    When we tried to do this in Arizona, the prosecutors pushed 
back saying, no, this is not first-time drug offenders that are 
in the Arizona prisons at least. The prisons actually showed us 
the statistics of who was in the prisons, and you had to be 
basically a drug dealer, not just a drug user, at least in 
Arizona, or it had to be a violent crime.
    So, I guess, Ms. McCurdy, you might be the right person to 
answer, is this the case also in Federal prison? I mean, do you 
have first-time drug offenders? Who is in the prison?
    Ms. McCurdy. So, not only do you have a number of first-
time--particularly with women, first-time drug offenders. In 
the Federal system, you are charged with trafficking or 
possession with the intent to distribute. Again, as we have 
talked about what often women fall victim to, is the conspiracy 
laws.
    So, you don't have to necessarily have dealt drugs. You 
must have some role in a conspiracy, and that, quote/unquote, 
role is very little. As you have heard Cindy talk about, you 
could live with your partner and pick up the phone in your 
house that you live with your partner and that is enough to 
implicate you in a conspiracy. You can take money to the bank 
that your partner gave you. Again, you are not involved in the 
trade itself, but you have these peripheral roles, and that is 
enough to get you involved in the conspiracy. The problem on 
the Federal level is that the focus is not on your role; the 
focus is on the weight of the drugs.
    So, if the conspiracy is large and the weight of the drugs 
is large and you don't have information to trade with the 
prosecutor to cooperate, you cannot get your sentence reduced 
to be on the mandatory minimum. Often women, because they are 
not involved in the trade, they end up taking the entire weight 
of the drug trade, which in some instances gets them life 
without parole sentences.
    Mrs. Lesko. Very interesting.
    The other thing that was brought up by one of the witnesses 
was about childcare. If you do get out and you are on 
probation, you must go to mandatory meetings. I know in our 
State of Arizona we offer free or reduced childcare to low-
income working women. There is usually a waiting list because 
there is a certain amount of funds.
    Is this something that I would assume would help in that 
situation? Because I imagine it would be difficult, especially 
if you are a single parent.
    Ms. Kajstura. Yeah. So that is definitely a step in the 
right direction. One of the other problems on probation is you 
are restricted to the hours you are allowed to leave the house, 
for example, if you have to do an emergency pickup of your kid 
and you can't reach your parole or probation officer in time, 
or the same thing for an emergency hospital visits. You are 
torn between your caregiving duties and knowing that you are 
going to get sent back to prison if you take your kid to the 
emergency room.
    Mrs. Lesko. Well, thank you. I only have 32 seconds left, 
and I have so many questions, so maybe I will follow up with 
all of you.
    The one thing that we did in our State too was we reformed 
our occupational licensing. I would imagine that if you have a 
criminal history, it might be difficult to get a regular job. 
So, I would assume a lot of women could be self-employed. So, 
what are your thoughts on that--I don't know how to pronounce 
your name, Ms. Onwuka? Thank you.
    Ms. Bass. Microphone.
    Ms. Onwuka. Your State is a great example of States of 
leading the charge in occupational licensing reform. For those 
who are unfamiliar, an occupational license is simply just a 
permission slip from the government for you to get into a 
vocation. That could be everything from hair braiding to being 
a florist.
    There are lots of certifications and hurdles, frankly, that 
can be costly, particularly if you are low income, you don't 
have a lot of money, you are taking care of children and the 
time it takes to get those certifications. A lot of them have 
nothing to do with any sort of health or actual trade itself. 
It is just a way to limit competition.
    So, Arizona is a great State. I think there are a lot of 
other States that are reforming, and I would absolutely 
encourage other States to look at particularly those industries 
where women are trying to get into those vocations. Those are 
entry-level jobs, and they can become a primary source of a 
very good income.
    Mrs. Lesko. Madam Chair, I know my time is up, but I just 
wanted to share with the Members that in our Arizona prisons, 
at least, we have what is called Correctional Industries, and 
there we put women to work. I have toured it.
    In fact, if you call a call center, you might be talking to 
a woman prisoner in Arizona, because they are actually 
contracted out and they are doing call center work for 
different companies. So, it is a good way for people to get 
trained, and I support that.
    I would like to work with you and other Members. I think 
there are pieces of this that we can work on in a bipartisan 
way.
    Ms. Bass. Absolutely.
    Mrs. Lesko. As long as we don't put in poison pills and 
that type of thing, I think we can work on it together.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you.
    Representative Demings.
    Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and thank you, 
Ranking Member, both of you, for your opening comments this 
morning that I think so adequately set the stage for today's 
hearing.
    Thank you to each of you. I served as a law enforcement 
officer for a lot of years, and our mission was to protect 
victims, but our purpose was never to create more victims. I 
think that it is so important that we understand the individual 
circumstances and victimization and other characteristics that 
women who are incarcerated face, like being victims of domestic 
violence, substance abuse, mental illness, being poor or low 
income. All of those are challenges that if we are going to 
improve how we do business, we have got to factor those things 
in. Eighty percent of the women who are incarcerated are 
parents.
    Ms. Shank, you are absolutely correct. I was a daddy's 
girl. I love my father, but you can't even put into words what 
it means to be with your mother and the special role that a 
woman plays, a mother plays in every household. So, thank you 
so much for being here today and helping us.
    We haven't even talked much about once you are released and 
coming back into society and the challenges of that. Ms. Shank, 
I would like to start with you. If you could just talk about 
the separation from your husband, but eventually, you were able 
to remarry and all, and that is great, but could you talk 
about, once you were released, some of the challenges that you 
faced coming back into society.
    Ms. Shank. Yeah. We did not reconcile. We are divorced, but 
we have a great relationship. We are coparenting our daughters 
and doing that together.
    When you are released, one of the challenges that I faced 
was to get a job. I was fortunate enough to get a job 29 days 
out of prison and just received my sixth promotion last week.
    Mrs. Demings. Congratulations.
    Ms. Shank. Thank you. That is determination and that is 
being a mother, having a lot of catching up to do.
    One of the things that was really hard, my halfway house 
was in Kalamazoo, which is an hour and a half drive away from 
my hometown, and they would have me come three to four times a 
week between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., which are my 
work hours, to come in for whatever they wanted me to come in 
for, just checkups, checking in, meetings, drops, whatever 
random thing that they wanted. If I didn't, then that was a 
violation of my probation. If I lose my job, which my job just 
hired me out, and plus I am a felon which they are looking at 
me. I could have easily loose my job and that is a violation of 
my probation. They make things very difficult.
    Thankfully, I had a vehicle. I asked the person at the 
halfway house, what would I do if I didn't have a car? She 
said, well, you would just take the bus. That is like 4 hours.
    Mrs. Demings. Days.
    Ms. Shank. Yeah, but they expect you to follow all these 
rules, which I understand, but they make things very difficult. 
That was very challenging for me early on. Luckily, I am off 
that home confinement and off probation. No, I am still on 
probation. I am still on for 5 years, but I don't have to do my 
check-ins anymore.
    Mrs. Demings. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Kerman, do you have anything to add to that? Also, you 
talked about that this is about policy. Incarceration of women 
is more about policy and not crimes. Could you elaborate a 
little bit on that as well, please?
    Ms. Kerman. Sure. I woke up on the day of my release. I was 
in a Federal jail facility in Chicago, not the prison facility 
in Danbury. No one in the facility would confirm that I was, in 
fact, going to be released, but I was quite alert. I watched 
Martha Stewart get released from Federal prison the same day on 
the news.
    Finally, hours later, a correctional officer said, come on, 
pack out, Kerman. They took me down to receiving and 
disbursement and said, we don't have any women's clothes, here 
are the smallest set of men's clothes we have. Here is a 
windbreaker. It was Chicago in the winter and here is $28, this 
is a gratuity. I was like, thank you.
    They took me to an alleyway door and opened up the alleyway 
door and were like, see ya. I was very, very lucky because my 
fiance was waiting at the front door to take me home to New 
York, which was 800 miles away. If that had not been true, my 
entire life might have been, almost surely, completely 
different.
    Because I had safe and stable housing, I was able to start 
work a week after my release from prison. I can't overstate how 
important that work piece is.
    I was treated very differently by my Federal supervising 
probation office. Both of us were in the Federal system. Of 
course, I was subject to drug testing, check-ins, and so on and 
so forth, but they did not treat me with a heavy hand like they 
did Cindy.
    I think we have to look very hard at what drives disparity 
in the system. It is race, it is class. It is unacceptable, it 
is illegal.
    That brings me back to your question about policy and the 
fact that criminology experts all over the country will point 
out the fact that it is policy decisions that drive 
incarceration. Our incarceration rise in this country does not 
map to crime rates.
    We began to incarcerate people at a very high rate as crime 
rates were actually beginning to decline. Crime rates continued 
to go up and up and up even as we now enjoy historically low 
crime rates, like some of the lowest crime rates ever recorded 
since we started recording.
    Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much. My 5 or 6 minutes goes 
very, very quickly.
    Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Bass. You are very welcome. Representative Cline.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
    I want to talk a little bit about the need for bail reform. 
Despite overall decreases in incarceration, pretrial detention 
since 2000 has increased by 31 percent to make up about two-
thirds of the overall jail population. Over 60 percent of women 
who are incarcerated have not been convicted of a crime and are 
held in custody pretrial. This has a unique impact because two-
thirds of the women who could not meet bail conditions, two-
thirds were mothers of minor children.
    So, at the time of the survey that I am quoting, over 
150,000 children had a parent in jail because they could not 
afford their bail bond. That means children are impacted by 
pretrial detention in startling numbers, and this problem is 
most often caused by the pretrial incarceration of sole 
provider mothers. So, we need to take steps to address this 
problem.
    As a former prosecutor, when you are presented with a 
potential bond situation in court, you have certain factors, at 
least in Virginia, to consider: Whether the the defendant is a 
flight risk, whether they are a risk to the community if 
released, or whether the severity of the offense with which 
they have been charged is also something to consider.
    There are also the issues of a secured bond versus an 
unsecured bond. We in Virginia have pretrial services, which 
can be administered, not in lieu of bond, but often they are a 
great way to help in the process to avoid having to keep 
someone incarcerated.
    So, let me ask anyone who would like to comment on that, 
what steps can we take to help address this problem?
    Ms. Kajstura. Well, I think part of the reason--so some of 
these problems are very systemic. Some of the impact that fees 
and bail bonds and the economic sanctions of the criminal 
justice system have on women are greater than men just because 
women don't tend to make as much money as men. This hits Black 
and Hispanic women even more so than White women.
    Mr. Cline. Okay. So, in addition--getting rid of a money-
based bond, I get that. Let's go a little deeper. Secured 
versus unsecured, pretrial versus bond, can you speak to those 
specifics as to whether one might be more advantageous than 
another when it comes to reducing the impact on children in 
this situation?
    Ms. Kajstura. Yeah. I am not sure about the way those 
distinctions would make a difference. Maybe somebody else could 
speak to it.
    Mr. Cline. Okay. Anybody else? Ms. McCurdy?
    Ms. Kerman. I received bail and was able to pay my bail 
with the help of my family, and that literally made all the 
difference in my life. We know the data shows that people who 
are able to afford bail get better outcomes in their cases, for 
a variety of reasons, but including the fact that they are not 
desperate to plead guilty and take pleas that they should not 
take, which, of course, 95 percent of all criminal defendants 
take a plea.
    I can observe that from my time in that Federal jail, that 
women there who were on pretrial status were desperate. They 
were desperate about what was going on with their families. 
They were desperately uncertain about what was going to happen 
to their own lives. They had no idea--there is a woman who had 
been incarcerated there for 2 years pretrial.
    Mr. Cline. What about encouragement of stay-home 
monitoring? I mean, is that something that could enable maybe--
    Ms. Kerman. So, during my 6 years spent on pretrial, I 
simply reported to probation in New York City. My case was 
caught in Chicago, but I was supervised in New York City where 
I lived.
    Mr. Cline. You were 6 years on pretrial?
    Ms. Kerman. I spent 9 years under correctional control 
total, though I was fortunate to only spend 1 of it 
incarcerated.
    Mr. Cline. Wow.
    Ms. Kerman. So, 6 years of pretrial. I went through several 
probation officers that were supervising, but it was a pretty 
straightforward process. I turned up once a month. I was tested 
for drugs. All the same things that we require of probation, 
basically.
    I was not a mother, so I think that a mother is even less 
of a flight risk or we have a greater consideration as a 
society to make sure that a mother is able to be in the 
community. Certainly, the Federal system is set up to do 
something other than rely on bail or pretrial incarceration in 
the outcome of its sentences.
    I must reflect on the fact that, you are a former 
prosecutor, the responsibility of this really lies squarely 
within the prosecutorial function and its relationship with the 
supervision.
    Mr. Cline. With a recommendation. Right.
    Ms. Kerman. Women are a great example of the best possible 
candidates for pretrial treatment that does not involve 
incarceration.
    Mr. Cline. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you. Representative McBath.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thank you to each of you for being here today to share your 
expertise and your personal experience. It is critical that we 
hear from you.
    In recent years, I represent Georgia's 6th Congressional 
District, Georgia took on the challenge of criminal justice 
reform. Under the leadership of Governor Nathan Deal, a 
Republican, Georgia has enacted bipartisan reforms that are 
reducing recidivism--easy for me to say--recidivism and saving 
Georgia taxpayers billions of dollars.
    Unfortunately, these reforms may not be doing enough to 
affect the outcomes for women. Women are now the fastest 
growing population in Georgia's justice system, sadly to say. I 
know that we have to do more to make sure that women are more 
than an afterthought as we work to improve our criminal justice 
system.
    Ms. McCurdy, specialized courts like drug courts and mental 
health courts have been a major pillar of Georgia's criminal 
justice reform efforts, and they have also helped to reduce the 
incarceration of nonviolent individuals. How can we work to 
ensure that specialized courts are serving the needs of women?
    Ms. McCurdy. So specialized courts are definitely one 
answer to some of the problems in the system. The thing that I 
want to caution us about specialized courts is that often 
people are required to plead guilty before they get access to a 
specialized, a drug court, or a mental health court.
    Particularly with drug courts, when you are dealing with 
people who have substance abuse problems and because of their 
problems can fall off the wagon and ultimately have already 
pled guilty. We have to really be careful about the way we use 
our drug courts so that we are not funneling people in the 
system or basically being able to create a system where they 
will ultimately fail because they can't adhere to the 
conditions of drug court.
    So, my recommendation is particularly for drug courts, that 
we not require people to plead guilty at the time they enter 
and that they are able to at least try to get through the 
diversion aspect of the drug court before ultimately a plea or 
a decision about their actual charge is resolved.
    Mrs. McBath. Would you actually say that the percentages of 
women that are actually having to plead guilty has gone up 
within recent years?
    Ms. McCurdy. Yes.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you for that.
    Ms. Kajstura, please forgive me if I mispronounce your 
name, do you have anything to add to that? I would love to hear 
from you.
    Ms. Kajstura. No, nothing to add. I would like to underline 
that the guilty plea aspect of diversion courts is the effects 
that cannot be understated. Any mistake then leads somebody 
back into the kind of mainstream courts with a guilty plea, 
whether or not they were, in fact, guilty. Because often, like 
any plea bargains, if you are facing a very high sentence 
possibility, you are coerced into pleading just to get out of 
jail, just to get out of prison.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you.
    Another component of criminal justice reform in Georgia is 
the rehabilitative programs, including drug and mental health 
treatment and programs that improve people's employment 
prospects upon their release. Again, these investments in 
people save money by keeping people from committing crimes 
again.
    Ms. McCurdy, what obstacles do women face in assessing 
these programs? I am sure there are lots of obstacles they are 
having to overcome.
    Ms. McCurdy. Well, I think, particularly in the Federal 
system, one of the obstacles to even participating in the 
programs in the Bureau of Prisons is there is not enough 
programming, as I think Cindy has said.
    Even when there is programming, staff and women in prison 
don't even know about it. Particularly, for example, there is a 
trauma program called FIT in the Federal prison system. Only 
one facility actually, according to our Office of Inspector 
General report, even offers the program. Again, this is around 
trauma-responsive programming, and not many people knew about 
it.
    There is another program, MINT, and that is a program that 
is supposed to help mothers stay with their children while they 
are incarcerated. Only 37 percent of the people in the Federal 
prison participated in it, and many did not know about it and 
weren't told about it from the Bureau of Prisons. There were 
plenty of slots that were available for women to participate in 
it. We must get the information out.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you.
    Representative Steube.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I hail from Florida where I spent some time in the State 
legislature, and we did, especially on the senate side, 
attempted to do an incredible amount of criminal justice reform 
before I left, and they were still working on it while I have 
been up here.
    One of the things that we never focused on was the female 
side of prison reform and criminal justice reform. All the 
focus was kind of what you guys are talking about, was just, in 
general, mostly on the male side of the equation. So, I 
appreciate all of you being here today and kind of bringing 
this issue to the forefront.
    I just would love to get your recommendations. Ms. Shank, 
in your testimony, you talked about women in prison with you 
and wanting them to have a second chance. Help me understand 
what that would look like. After a certain amount of time of 
good behavior, do we then bring them up for like a probation-
type hearing? Like what, in your mind, is that second chance 
that we on the Federal side could look at doing in 
circumstances like that?
    Ms. Shank. Well, like right now with the First Step Act, 
their initiative with the programming. That to me is very 
important of allowing women to, first, let's get some programs 
in there. Let's allow them to get the help that they need. 
Let's allow them to get education. Then, putting in the 
incentives to give them help with time off or maybe just there 
is no parole or anything like that in the Federal system. You 
do 87 percent of your time.
    Relief. They just need relief of anything that we could do 
to help shorten their sentences, whether it would be 
programming or whether it would be a bill that we pass that 
recalculates the weight and the calculation and what that means 
to sentencing. We just need to allow the women a chance to 
breathe, to give them that second chance.
    There are women that I was incarcerated with who were 
serving 20-30-year sentences. For me, the prosecutor asked for 
89 years. I received my mandatory minimum sentence. So, let's 
get rid of these mandatory minimum sentences. That, to me, is 
very important.
    Mr. Steube. That was some of the things that we worked on 
the floor was getting rid of some of the mandatory minimums 
that went in. So, you are talking about rehabilitation, 
employment-type programs in the prisons.
    Ms. Kerman, you had talked about the Justice Home program 
in New York. Is that something that you would like to see at 
the Federal level, some type of similar program at the Federal 
level? Is that lacking? Do we not have something like that at 
the Federal level?
    Ms. Kerman. There is nothing remotely like it available in 
the Federal system. So, again, that gives discretion to judges 
and prosecutors. They evaluate the case in front of them, their 
felony cases, and they may elect to allow the woman to stay in 
the community, again, go through accountability measures but 
also get some wraparound help.
    Every woman is different. Some women need job education. 
Some women need mental health or access to mental healthcare, 
substance use disorder. Every case is different, but the 
results are fantastic. It saves the taxpayers money, and it 
saves those families the trauma of being torn apart by 
incarceration.
    I have to return to that question of trauma, because we 
know that it actually lies at the heart of most women's 
involvement in the criminal justice system. Eighty to ninety 
percent of women in the system have been the victims of sexual 
assault, other physical assault, or really significant trauma 
prior to their incarceration. The overlapping incidences of 
substance use disorder and mental health problems are directly 
related.
    If people in the community get the trauma response that is 
necessary in a timely fashion, we would see--and this is true 
of men as well, but it is disproportionately true for women--
something very, very different in the criminal justice system. 
That experience of trauma, as Cindy's history of being a victim 
of domestic abuse, should have been considered at sentencing.
    Mr. Steube. Well, and you have previously testified before 
the Senate Judiciary Committee. Is that correct?
    Ms. Kerman. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. Steube. In the Senate Committee on Homeland Security on 
issues of prison reform?
    Ms. Kerman. That is correct.
    Mr. Steube. That was in 2014 and 2015?
    Ms. Kerman. Yes.
    Mr. Steube. So, since that time, what progress, if any, has 
been made in prison reform at the Federal level?
    Ms. Kerman. I think that we have seen lots of innovations 
at the State level. We have seen very little progress in the 
Federal Government, other than the passage of the Federal 
legislations recently.
    I must make the point that both the Federal Bureau of 
Prisons and all correctional systems operate with limited 
oversight in many cases and limited accountability when 
problems are found within correctional systems or individual 
prisons.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you.
    Ms. Kerman. No prison has ever been closed because it was 
badly run.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Ms. Bass. Representative Deutch. I am sorry.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you. Oh, no, you are fine. I just wanted 
to say that I would be happy to work on these issues moving 
forward with the committee. We did a lot of this in Florida, 
and I certainly think that their testimony is very impactful on 
the issues. So, thank you.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you.
    Representative Deutch.
    Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thanks to all the witnesses for being here. Thanks for your 
helpful and really powerful testimony.
    Ms. Kajstura, you drafted an article entitled ``Women's 
Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2018'' that dramatically 
captures the current State of women and girls in our Nation's 
criminal justice system. Some of the statistics in there, some 
of the statistics we have heard already today, over 219,000 
women and girls incarcerated in the U.S. We talked about the 
700 percent increase since 1980.
    The growth rate of incarcerated women now outpaces men. 60 
percent of women in local jails have not been convicted of a 
crime, and 80 percent of the women--80 percent of the women 
being held in jails are mothers.
    So, in January of this year, the American Journal of Public 
Health released a study on pregnancy in prisons, finding that 
in 22 States, they studied a total of 1,396 pregnant women who 
were held in prison, but accessibility to adequate medical care 
is atrocious. This is a devastating impact on women.
    I would just flag one incident in my own district. On the 
morning of April 10, there was an incident in Pompano Beach, 
Florida, that I represent. I would like to submit for the 
record a letter from the Broward County Public Defender Howard 
Finkelstein to Broward County Sheriff Gregory Tony detailing 
the incident.
    Ms. Bass. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

    

                       MR. DEITSCH FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================


[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Tammy Jackson, a 34-year-old woman, pregnant woman with a 
mental illness complained to jail officers at 3 a.m. that she 
was experiencing contractions. Jail officials moved the woman 
to an empty cell and left her alone for nearly 7 hours. 
Finally, after more than 4 hours, at 7:22 a.m., they spoke with 
a physician.
    The physician stated he would check on her when he arrived. 
Then they waited. Finally, a deputy observed the woman 
squatting and screaming in pain and then, I quote, heard a baby 
crying as he approached the cell. When he saw Ms. Jackson 
standing with a baby in her arms, he helped wrap the baby with 
a towel.
    The nurse described the incident as, and I quote ``a 
pregnant female had a spontaneous delivery.'' Well, it 
shouldn't have happened like that, obviously. That is not how 
anyone should be treated in America.
    However shocking as it may be, it is not an isolated 
occurrence. In fact, a few days earlier, another woman almost 
gave birth alone at a cell in the same facility. Fortunately, 
in that instance, jail officials transported the woman in time 
to a hospital where she gave birth to the baby.
    I would just ask--I think I will ask Ms. McCurdy, you 
first, what kind of data should prisons and jails be collecting 
on pregnancy for incarcerated women?
    Ms. McCurdy. Well, first of all, I find it funny that they 
characterized it as a spontaneous birth when they had a 9 
months' notice. I think it is important that we know four to 
five women enter jails pregnant, 4 to 5 percent of women enter 
jails pregnant. So, at the point that their pregnancy is 
acknowledged, medical attention should start at that point.
    Just as if women were not in jail or prisons, they need the 
continuous medical prenatal attention that women need on the 
outside as well. So, we can't wait until they get to the point 
where they are about to have birth to give them prenatal care. 
We must do it from the day they enter jails.
    More importantly, we need to stop putting pregnant women in 
jail. There are too many alternatives that we could turn to 
before the last option is to put a pregnant woman in jail.
    Mr. Deutch. I appreciate that. I agree.
    Just to put a few things in the record, that study also 
points out that there is no Federal agency that is responsible 
for collecting incarceration data that also collects pregnancy 
data. I assume--let me just confirm--that pregnancy data of 
incarcerated women should be collected by the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, correct?
    Ms. McCurdy. Correct.
    Mr. Deutch. The lack of pregnancy data collected on 
incarcerated women is an indication, obviously, that our prison 
and jail system has not adapted to the increasing number of 
women and girls in the system.
    I am concerned, finally, that the quality of medical care 
and staff training for pregnant women can differ dramatically. 
Should a national standard be developed on the care that 
pregnant women receive while incarcerated?
    Ms. McCurdy. Absolutely. Again, that national standard 
should start with keeping women out of jails and prisons that 
are pregnant.
    Mr. Deutch. All right. Thank you. Thank you all very much.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Bass. Representative Richmond.
    Mr. Richmond. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you 
for having this hearing.
    As I hear from the witnesses today, it appears a number of 
things that I take out of it, one of which is the power and the 
amount of abuse that can happen in prosecutorial discretion. 
That is a question for, I think, this Committee and 
policymakers to determine how much power that prosecutors are 
going to have.
    It was a prosecutor, Ms. Shank, that made the decision to 
come back after 5 years and charge you with a crime. Too often, 
prosecutors look at people as leverage to go after something 
else or collateral damage towards some other fight. I think 
that we need to make sure that we are holding our prosecutors 
accountable, so that if you are rich and affluent, you get 
different treatment than if you are poor and uneducated. I 
think that that is something that have to highlight.
    The other point I heard is programming. One of the things 
that I find to be the climax of foolishness in our correctional 
system in America is the fact that we encourage people when we 
lock them up to better themselves, and then when they get out, 
we have barriers to them getting licenses in those very 
professions we train them in.
    So, in many States, you have a catch-all phrase to get a 
license called good moral character. Well, we invested money in 
people--formerly incarcerated people to train them. What sense 
does it make to bar them from entering those professions once 
we invested in the training? Do you all agree that is 
counterproductive?
    I would note that everybody seemed to say yes, so--
    Ms. Shank. Absolutely.
    Ms. Kerman. Yes.
    Mr. Richmond. The other thing is the family connection. You 
all said it. I wrote an article a long time ago that said, I 
was talking about a father then, that the father may be in jail 
but the family is doing the time. Well, certainly when a mother 
is in jail, the family is doing the time.
    In the First Step Act, we said that we have to incarcerate 
people within 500 driving miles of the home. I think that the 
conversation today gives real credence to, maybe with women, 
that number needs to be reduced in half when you think of the 
importance and the difficulty and the fact that women are less 
likely to be visited in jail.
    The other thing I heard was gender-responsive correctional 
approaches that is guided by women-centered research and data. 
I think that that is very, very important, and I want to thank 
you all for your recommendations.
    So, Ms. Kerman, let me ask you a question. You talked about 
Justice Home. Does that also apply for violent crimes or just 
nonviolent crimes?
    Ms. Kerman. I think that is at the discretion of the 
prosecutors and the judges. Certainly, the program I served on, 
the board of the Women's Prison Association, which is one of 
the community agencies that does the ongoing work with 
participants, and we would certainly take anybody regardless of 
their crime of conviction. That program does give a possibility 
at record expungement, depending on what the crime is and 
depending on the person's completion of the program and, of 
course, depending on the discretion of the judge and the 
prosecutor.
    I think that it is a very artificial line often that we 
make the distinction between crimes we characterize as violent 
and crimes that we characterize as nonviolent. Anyone who is 
intimate with the courts system and the way that charges are 
brought knows--
    Mr. Richmond. Well--
    Ms. Kerman. --that those terms are not always true 
reflections.
    Mr. Richmond. Well, let me just cut you off. Because I did 
criminal offense, and I am not talking about the nuance between 
weight and not weight, whether it is determined as violent. I 
am talking about crimes of violence where there is a physical 
victim.
    Let me move on really quickly to something I don't think I 
heard, and that is housing at the end of incarceration is one 
of the biggest factors in recidivism. So, the question becomes, 
all of these artificial barriers to public housing, to public 
educational assistance, once you have been formerly 
incarcerated, how do we tackle those barriers?
    The last part of that is seeing, especially with crack 
cocaine, if a child in public housing was convicted of having 
crack or drugs, then the mother gets evicted from public 
housing. Now, with opioids, we do not see prosecutors and 
housing authorities push to evict opioid parents. So, a note 
that we ought to treat them the same way. But, how important is 
housing in this whole equation, stable housing when you get 
out?
    Ms. Kerman. I mean, safe and stable housing is not only 
important for women's return to the community. A lack of safe 
and stable housing is a determining factor in why many women 
end up in the system in the first place. Not having a safe 
place to live, women's lack of safety has a contributing factor 
to their potential to commit crimes as well.
    So as far as those many policy-based barriers to people 
gaining access to safe and stable housing, we should drop them. 
Those are not things that we have to do. Those are things that 
we choose to do. We should choose to tear down each and every 
barrier to full citizenship that people like me and Cindy face.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you.
    Ms. Kerman. We deserve our citizenship in full.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you.
    Representative Jeffries.
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Chairwoman Bass, for convening 
this hearing and for your tremendous leadership in this area.
    I want to thank all our witnesses for your presence here 
today and for the compelling information that you are 
providing.
    Ms. Shank, I think you said in your testimony that you 
believe that the years and miles of separation caused by 
incarceration are in part designed to break the bonds between 
families. Is that right?
    Ms. Shank. That is absolutely correct. I feel that 1,000 
percent. Being we were limited to 300 minutes a month on phone 
calls, which we have to pay for ourselves. I had three 
daughters. They are fighting over the phone. Imagine a child 
when they hear that beep. My kids would panic when they would 
hear that beep before the phone is going to hang up, and then 
to cry and telling me, don't hang up, Mommy, don't hang up. 
Mommy, please, don't hang up. The phone just to drop, it is 
devastating. It to happen every single time, I mean, it is set 
up to keep you apart.
    They try and tell you that you are here and we want you to 
strengthen your family ties and they are offering things, but 
they don't offer anything. They move you 1,000 miles away, 
which I saw my daughters once a year. I had limited phone 
calls. They were too little to email and write letters. We 
would do the best we could. I would always write them and try 
anything I could to keep them to remember me, but it was very 
hard and very challenging.
    Mr. Jeffries. You were released from prison, I believe, in 
March of 2017, after serving 9 years. Is that right?
    Ms. Shank. Correct.
    Mr. Jeffries. Based on your experiences--and congratulate 
you on the success that you have had subsequent to your 
release--what is it that you think we as Members of Congress 
can think about in terms of how to both address the trauma that 
occurs based on the family separation and how to help 
facilitate the family unit coming together after one's release?
    Ms. Shank. I mean, that is a really good question because 
there is just nothing, nothing in play. I guess it would stem 
from the time that you are separated, to help during that time 
of incarceration, whether it is some type of family day they 
would offer at some of the prisons once a year, maybe 
encouraging that more. Just the type of visits that you have. 
Even the little visits I did have were very cold and the 
environment was very cold. It wasn't a very comforting 
environment. I think that plays a big part of it.
    When you come home, it is up to you ultimately, but if 
there were some type of therapy, family therapy that could be 
offered, I think that is very helpful, if you offered it to 
people. I know for me, I am in therapy. My children are in 
therapy. That is something that we had to be proactive about as 
individuals. I know that many people don't have the luxury of 
that, maybe to offer that would be very helpful.
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you.
    Ms. Onwuka, did I pronounce that correctly?
    Ms. Onwuka. Yes.
    Mr. Jeffries. Okay. No, thank you.
    In your testimony, I think you made the important 
observation that too many women are locked out of the economic 
recovery as a result of their criminal background. And that 
obviously has consequences and implications for being able to 
put the family unit back together and to robustly pursue the 
American Dream after a period of incarceration.
    Could you offer some thoughts as to the impact of 
incarceration and the way forward in terms of how to make sure 
that we are really creating the ability for people, upon paying 
their debt to society, to follow the American Dream and succeed 
economically?
    Ms. Onwuka. Absolutely. Thank you. I spent a lot of time 
talking about the amount of opportunity that is available today 
in this economy and how because of that criminal record you are 
seeing people locked out. What is interesting is we are 
starting to see a shift now because of a tight jobs market, 
because it is harder to find qualified or employ people to fill 
positions, and we have 7.1 million unfilled positions right now 
in the economy.
    I think employers are starting to look at people they would 
not have considered before, and that includes people who have a 
criminal background, who have a criminal record. That is, I 
think, a great thing for women and great for anyone who is 
coming out of the correctional system. Again, that doesn't mean 
that everybody is going to do that.
    At the State level we have seen the movement towards ban-
the-box. For those who are unfamiliar, it is the idea that 
employers do not ask whether you have any sort of criminal 
background. It is a way of giving someone a chance based on the 
merits of their experience and their background before writing 
them off because they have a criminal record.
    There are States who have implemented it. I think, it is 
interesting. Private companies who do it from Coca-Cola to Koch 
Industries, Starbucks, Google, all of these companies have 
voluntarily started to do that. I think that is a way of 
opening up opportunity for women, for people of color, for 
everyone who has a criminal background.
    I hesitate to say that it should be a Federal policy or 
that it should be mandated because it could have an unintended 
consequence, particularly against people of color and 
particularly against men of color, but there is an opportunity 
there for voluntary private sector companies to say, you know 
what, I am going to weigh someone's applications based on the 
merit.
    I talked a lot about it, and several people have talked 
about vocations, and we have seen the Trump Administration 
interestingly talking about apprenticeships. It is an idea that 
I think people have forgotten or written off just to blue 
collar industries.
    Recently, the Trump Administration released a new 
regulatory change that would actually expand apprenticeships to 
White collar opportunities, which I think is an interesting 
place because there are going to be people who have a criminal 
record who don't go to a 4-year college, who don't have a bunch 
of ABCs behind their name but still want to get into an 
industry that can be a great middle-class lifestyle.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you.
    Ms. Onwuka. So, seeing that--oh, sorry.
    Ms. Bass. Sorry. We need to move on.
    Mr. Jeffries. My time is expired but thank you very much 
for your testimony.
    Ms. Bass. Representative Cicilline.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I want to thank our Chairwoman 
Bass for convening this really important hearing and for your 
extraordinary and longstanding leadership on these issues. 
Thank you so much to our witnesses for really powerful 
testimony.
    I want to focus for a moment on this whole idea of family 
impact, because I think one of the things that people need to 
understand, one of my most haunting memories was doing a school 
visit and seeing a fifth-grade boy clearly distracted, kind of 
not paying attention, and me kneeling down to ask him if he was 
okay, and him in a very quiet voice saying, my mom went to jail 
last night.
    The notion that he was expected to like study and pay 
attention and behave, and so understanding that in many ways 
children of incarcerated parents are victims as much as others 
and are blameless in the conduct of an adult parent but really 
suffer the consequences.
    So, I am intrigued by this idea of both pre-sentence and 
post-sentence whether or not we ought to require sentencing 
judges and judges making determinations with respect to release 
to consider the impact on family, not just allow them to, but 
saying understand the reality of incarcerating.
    This particularly is the case where women are most often 
the primary caregiver and the obvious special relationship 
between a mother and her children, whether we ought to do that 
both in pretrial and in sentencing requiring, sort of 
understand, as a sentencing judge or as a judge making a bail 
determination the full impact of your decision on, not just the 
defendant, but the family who are blameless in this instance.
    I wonder whether you agree, Ms. Shank and Ms. Kerman, that 
makes sense.
    Ms. Shank. It absolutely makes sense, and I think that 
should be highly considered.
    Ms. Kerman. It absolutely makes sense. Again, Massachusetts 
and Tennessee have signed that very requirement into law, and 
so judges in those States will be required to do just that.
    Mr. Cicilline. That is a requirement. It is not discretion. 
They are required to consider it?
    Ms. Kerman. The Governor of Tennessee just signed that 
legislation, I believe, last week or the week before, and it 
was in last year's omnibus crime reform bill in Massachusetts. 
So, the nitty-gritty is the transformation of the prosecutorial 
function and of the bench in terms of how prosecutors and 
judges understand what is expected of them.
    Mr. Cicilline. All right. When you make changes like that, 
I know you have to also implement training and good education 
both of the court and of the prosecutors.
    The second thing I want to mention is there has been a lot 
of discussion about the separation of family as it relates to 
the placement of a defendant--of a person in custody and their 
family.
    Is there any good policy or reason that you can think of--
and this is for anyone--that we shouldn't simply require the 
Bureau of Prisons to place the defendant in the facility 
closest to their home, period, obviously consistent with 
security needs? But, if there is a facility closest to your 
home that meets the security, ought that be the presumption and 
they have to argue and if, in fact, they don't follow that, 
they have to give some reason?
    Mr. Cicilline. It seems to me 200 miles, even 250 miles is 
still a very long distance to expect anyone to travel. Why not 
just have the presumption, because it is your family.
    Ms. Kerman. Yeah. If you are a poor family in New 
Hampshire, the Bronx, then, Connecticut might as well be Mars 
for some people.
    Mr. Cicilline. I only have a little bit of time, so I just 
want to--do you agree that makes sense?
    Ms. Kerman. I absolutely agree that makes sense, that local 
supervision can get complicated and there is very little 
oversight. So, the requirement for the Federal Government to 
then oversee local law enforcement, which I would support, 
would be a necessity.
    Mr. Cicilline. The final thing I want to ask you about, Ms. 
Kerman and Ms. Shank, in the State of Rhode Island, we have a 
very robust reentry initiative in which defendants, before they 
are returned to a community, meet with a reentry counsel that 
has housing experts and healthcare experts and mental health to 
be sure that there is in place a comprehensive plan for their 
successful reentry. It has really produced extraordinary 
results because we have seen so much evidence about people who 
are released without that support system who come back because 
they don't have a place to live, they get involved with drugs 
again.
    So, I am wondering whether your experiences in the Federal 
system, whether you had a similar experience that was sort of 
well planned before you were released so you would be 
successful. If not, do you think some model like that makes 
sense?
    Ms. Shank. Absolutely a model like that makes sense. There 
is really no programming, there is no reentry. There is very 
limited--you don't even have access to information to fill out 
for your driver's license. They give you zero. There is no 
information available to you in the Federal system. They do not 
prepare you whatsoever. They just do not. You are released when 
they release you, they are done with you.
    Mr. Cicilline. Great. Thank you so much.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you.
    Representative Dean.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I am pleased to be here, and I thank all of you for your 
important testimony on all of these issues.
    In my limited time, I wanted to try to zero in on a couple 
of things. In my background, before I came to Congress this 
term, I was a State representative in Pennsylvania. I was on 
the judiciary Committee there, constantly fighting new 
mandatory minimums. So, I appreciate very much, Ms. Shank, the 
way you spoke about the discretion should be with the judges. 
So, some of these sentences might be that long under the 
discretion of the judge based on the facts and law in front of 
her or him.
    But if we could, maybe I will start with you Ms. McCurdy. I 
am also interested in the notion of addiction, substance abuse 
disorder and its impact on this. In Montgomery County, my own 
Montgomery County just May of this year, maybe you saw this 
case, a woman named Emma was convicted and sentenced to 21 
years in prison as a result of distributing heroin, sharing 
heroin in a KFC bathroom with her friend who was 20 years old 
that day and died. Don't get me wrong, this is an 
extraordinarily serious case with victims all around.
    The woman, Emma, was sentenced to 21 years in prison as a 
result of a mandatory minimum for, leaving the scene, allowing 
that woman to go on overdosed and die, not alerting first 
responders, but also enhanced because it was within 1,000 feet 
of a school.
    Can you speak to the notion of addiction, substance abuse 
disorder, this is two 20-year-old women, addicts of heroin and 
how that translates into incarceration?
    Ms. McCurdy. Yes. I mean, that is part of both property and 
drug crimes that you see women being incarcerated for. Again, 
with women, a lot of times it is because of their addiction. 
They are not getting treatment necessarily once they go to jail 
or prison, and a lot of times they are self-medicating because 
of the trauma that they have experienced before coming into 
contact with the criminal justice system. So, then it just 
becomes a cycle. If we don't treat the trauma, we don't treat 
the substance abuse that is responding to the trauma that is 
the self-medication from the trauma, then we just keep going 
around and around in circles.
    Ms. Dean. I appreciate that. I also had the chance as a 
State representative to visit Muncy prison in Pennsylvania, an 
all-women's prison. Between addiction, mental health disorders, 
and the connection between conspiracy and life sentences is an 
extraordinarily powerful and sad place at the same time.
    Can we talk about the issue, and maybe you both could tell 
me your experience with other women in prison whether they 
suffered life sentences, what we could be doing better in terms 
of life sentences particularly as it occurs with women?
    Ms. Shank. I mean, I think, initially, just sentencing 
somebody to life is wrong. I think we need to allow a person--I 
mean, I understand punishment in crime, but the punishment 
needs to fit the crime. I don't think we should just wash our 
hands at people. I think we need to allow somebody to punish 
them for their crime, let it fit the crime, but then let's help 
them not to let this happen again. What is the actual problem? 
Is it psychological? Is it mental health? Is it drugs, 
addiction? Do they need education? We need to not just lock 
people up, but we need to, as I like to say, bury them alive. 
We need to actually help them.
    Ms. Dean. So many of the women there describe that they 
just don't want to die there. They don't want this to be the 
end of their story. It is interesting you use the words wash 
our hands of people. I also was in Curran-Fromhold prison with 
Pope Francis in Philadelphia, where he used the gospel about 
washing the feet of your visitor, washing the feet of those who 
have traveled life's dusty, dirty road, because we all go down 
bad roads.
    So maybe, Ms. Kerman, you could speak to that issue of the 
Pope wanted to say this is not your whole story and know that 
we are all broken people like you.
    Ms. Kerman. When I think about the point that you raise, 
Representative, I think about my students in Ohio. I have 
lifers in both the men's facility and the women's facility 
where I teach. I have a young woman in my women's writing class 
who was sentenced when she was 16 years old. The propensity for 
us to put children into the adult system in this country is 
significant.
    We know that the decade between 15 and 25 is a decade where 
brain development is not complete; impulsivity, judgment, and 
bad decisions are rife. We all make bad decisions during that 
time period in our lives, not all of us are held accountable in 
the same way.
    I look at any--I have three students who were sentenced as 
children to adult life sentences, and they each, all three of 
them, are remarkably intelligent, thoughtful, humane people, 
and very different people now than when they committed their 
crimes. I believe passionately that everyone deserves a second 
chance and sometimes a third chance, but deserves to be 
measured, not only for their worst act, but also for their best 
acts and the best things they are capable of.
    That does not mean that victims do not deserve a central 
role in reforms to our criminal justice system, but what we 
have seen in places like California and other places in this 
country is that victims and survivors of crime are increasingly 
advocating for the very reforms that other parts of the 
community are also calling for.
    Ms. Dean. I just want to put onto the record, if I may, an 
article--
    Ms. Bass. Without objection.
    Ms. Dean. --that I have of our governor, Governor Wolf, 
granting clemency, commuting some sentences of lifers. It is 
very important that he do that, but many States and our Federal 
Government actually seek greater criminal justice reform.
    [The information follows:]

    

                        MS. DEAN FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================


[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Bass. Representative Mucarsel-Powell.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Chairwoman Bass, for 
holding such an important hearing.
    The issue of women that are stuck in an unjust criminal 
justice system is becoming a greater issue in this country and 
it is rarely part of the conversation. So, I thank you, Ms. 
Shank, and other women who may be present here today, Ms. 
Kerman, for lifting up your voices, for your courage in sharing 
your stories. It is the only way that we are going to bring 
attention to the issues, so thank you for being here today.
    The fact is that most women are charged with lower-level 
offenses and have less extensive criminal histories than their 
male counterparts. In 2017, women of color were particularly 
impacted by our laws where 40 percent of Federal women 
offenders are Hispanic, and 21 percent are Black. Of these 
women, upwards of 85 to 90 percent have a history of domestic 
or sexual abuse. Sixty percent of the women that are right now 
in prison have children 18 years or younger.
    I wanted to start with Ms. McCurdy. In the past 40 years, 
we have seen that the State prison population of women has 
grown up to by 834 percent. Why do you think we have had such a 
drastic increase of women who are now in the prison system?
    Ms. McCurdy. Because of the war on drugs is one of the 
major reasons. Both in the Federal and State system, we have 
focused so much of our attention, for example, in the Federal 
system, 45 percent of the people that are in Bureau of Prison 
custody are there for drug offenses. So, almost half of the 
people that are in Federal custody are there for drug offenses. 
Some of them are women, but what you are seeing is the result 
of the focus on the war on drugs and why so many women and men 
are in prison, even though many of them really need treatment 
and don't need incarceration.
    Our money would be better spent if we really focused on 
treating their substance abuse, because a lot of it is 
substance abuse, whether they were charged with trafficking or 
charged with possession, versus spending on the Federal level 
$36,000 a year per person to incarcerate people. We could 
spend, I think Piper talked about $20,000 a year for drug 
treatment, probably even less than that, though.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Yeah. The economic cost is huge, but 
the human cost is devastating for generations.
    Ms. McCurdy. Is even more devastating. Absolutely.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. In 2016, the imprisonment rate of 
African American women was twice the rate of imprisonment for 
White women. Hispanic women were imprisoned 1.4 times more than 
White women.
    Ms. McCurdy, why are women of color more likely to be 
imprisoned at twice the rate than White women? What solutions 
do you see in solving this gap?
    Ms. McCurdy. Well, again, as I talked about before, I think 
one is we have to develop alternatives to incarceration. Also, 
in terms of women that are in prison, we must be very 
responsive to their health needs, their mental health needs, 
their physical health needs, their gynecological needs. We also 
have to train correction staff, for example, when women end up 
in prison, to make sure they are being responsive, gender 
responsive to women's needs.
    As Piper said earlier, the prison systems were built on the 
fact that mostly men would be in them. So, a lot of the 
policies reflect that now and they have not caught up to the 
fact that we have so many women that are in those prison 
systems. Policies have to be responsive to gender needs. Those 
are some of the major things that we really need to focus on.
    We talked about shackling on the Federal level, that has 
been addressed to a certain extent, but we haven't talked about 
solitary confinement. Pregnant women are often held in solitary 
confinement while they are pregnant and postpartum. We must ban 
the policies that allow women that are pregnant to be held in 
solitary confinement. That is very dangerous.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Ms. McCurdy. As a mother, 
it has been tough to hear your testimony this morning. It is 
tough enough to see that this Administration is following 
family separation policies, and they are doing the same in the 
criminal justice system, and it is just heartbreaking.
    A question for Ms. Kerman. You testified that policy, not 
crimes, drive our incarceration. I have seen that in other 
policies that the Administration has taken as well. Can you 
explain a little bit what you mean by that?
    Ms. Kerman. Sure. So, you are drawing attention to racial 
disparities in the system is a reflection of policy. So, I live 
in Ohio, you might have two young men committing the exact same 
offense, but by policy and procedure, one of those young men 
might be heavily policed if he lives in a poor neighborhood, 
and one of those young men might not be policed at all if he 
lives in a fraternity house at OSU. Those disparities, those 
are policy choices, and those things drive disparity and drive 
some of those problems.
    We have talked a lot about substance use disorder and about 
its factor in driving incarceration and the availability or 
lack of treatment. I have to draw our attention back to this 
policy of mandatory minimum sentencing. If harsh punishment 
related to drug offenses worked, then we would not be where we 
are with addiction and drug abuse in this country.
    Ohio has one of the highest overdose rates in the country. 
We incarcerate a huge number of low-level drug offender. It 
does not result in less addiction and less substance use.
    There is a certain point in time, decades in, when we have 
to say regardless of what our punitive instincts are, that the 
policies and approach we have used is not working in terms of 
the public health and safety concerns which concern us the 
most. So that is a good example of that policy driving 
incarceration, even as it fails to solve the problems that we 
want solved in the community.
    Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Ms. Kerman. I think I am 
out of time.
    Ms. Bass. Representative Cohen.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    One policy we have in State and Federal both is we have 
private prisons. I would like to know your opinions on that as 
a factor in driving prison population and if there are any 
studies to show jurisdictions without private prisons and with 
private prisons and the rate of incarceration and the length of 
sentences. Who wants to jump in?
    Ms. Kajstura. So, I think private prisons definitely help 
keep mass incarceration in play in this country, because they 
provide space to hold people and they take often the kind of 
easiest cases, you could say, and charge the government the 
most to take care of people and do a really poor job of it 
because they have absolutely no government oversight.
    The private aspect of incarceration extends far past 
prisons, and this is important because--particularly important 
to women's incarceration because about half of women are 
actually incarcerated in jails rather than prisons. Jails use a 
lot of private contractors that make it hard and difficult to 
talk about family separation. In jails, even though you are 
ostensibly closer to home, often it is harder to keep in touch 
because the phone call rates are much higher. There are some 
county jails in Michigan where it is $1.50 a minute to talk on 
the phone.
    Jails are more likely to have letter bans, so literally 
banning letters from home. Your kids are relegated to a 
postcard size that is public, you can't put it in an envelope, 
to communicate with your family. Visits are often turned into 
video visits. So, a company comes in and charges $20 for a 
visit, and your family still has to drive to the jail, but they 
can't see you. They are put in a separate room with a video 
monitor.
    So, yes, there is a lot of private companies benefiting 
from mass incarceration and making things worse within the 
criminal justice system.
    Ms. Shank. If I can just say that privatized prisons are 
like a self-fulfilling prophecy of prisons built in the State, 
and often if the bed is empty, the State is fined. So, the 
State is going to do everything they can to not be fined to 
fill these beds. So, it is like a self-fulfilling prophecy, no 
one wins except the people making the money.
    Mr. Cohen. Tennessee is one of the worst States, I think. 
It was the home of Corrections Corporation of America, which is 
one of the large private prison people. I was a State senator 
for 24 years and thought--being in the Tennessee system because 
they would, lobby for longer sentences and lobby against 
different ways of release and that they made a lot of money and 
done really well. It is unfortunate, and that shouldn't happen.
    Has anybody done any studies on the cost to society of 
having a mother, particularly maybe as distinguished from a 
father, who is removed from a family and what cost that has to 
society at large?
    Ms. McCurdy?
    Ms. McCurdy. I don't know about financial. I haven't seen 
any studies on the financial cost, but I know the cost to 
children is that they often develop depression, anxiety. In the 
end, they end up in the criminal and juvenile justice system. 
So, that is the human cost of being separated from their 
mothers, because they don't have the guidance that they need in 
the early stages and are just, again, traumatized by their 
separation from their mother.
    Ms. Shank. I can tell you my own personal study, which was 
we had two incomes when we were married--a family. We had 
actually purchased our first home. We actually bought property 
to build our first home. When I was initially indicted and when 
I went away to prison, we went to a single-family income where 
my then-husband, Adam, had to take a different job because he 
couldn't take care of a 6-week-old baby with the hours, so he 
had a loss in income there. Then he became dependent on the 
State for medical insurance for the children. I mean, you lose.
    Mr. Cohen. I have a bill called the Fresh Start Act, which 
I have had for some time, and with the Democratic leadership 
here, we might have a chance to move it. It would provide a 
pathway for expungement in Federal crimes. If you had 7 years 
without any penalties and you have a nonviolent crime, you 
could get your record expunged.
    How would expungement help women, other prisoners, and 
family reunification?
    Ms. Kerman. Expungement would be a huge benefit and a good 
example of a smart policy change. I am much, much more 
fortunate than most formerly incarcerated people in this 
country, but I still cannot escort my son's field trips under 
Ohio State law because I have a felony conviction, despite my 
good conduct since my release in 2005. I would say that 
expungement, under appropriate guidelines, with whatever you 
have considered putting into the legislation, would be a huge 
benefit.
    There are an estimated 70 million people in this country 
who have some kind of a criminal record. So, this is not a 
fringe issue; this is something that impacts an enormous number 
of Americans.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you very much.
    I want to, before we conclude, really thank today's 
witnesses. I think this was a very, very powerful hearing. One 
of the things that I am so encouraged by from this hearing is 
this was a very bipartisan hearing. It was a bipartisan hearing 
from the witnesses and from the questions and comments of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
    I do want to make a few points in concluding. I think it is 
clear, and statistics would back up, that women are arrested, 
not 100 percent, but a high percentage of women are arrested 
and incarcerated because of their relationships with men.
    The conspiracy laws that especially were used a lot during 
the war on drugs were used to arrest women, to use women as 
leverage as the female partner of a drug dealer to get at the 
man, that maybe with the assumption that he would rescue her. 
What happens is that he abandons her, he cuts her lose, and she 
often takes the wrap and sometimes serves more time than the 
man she was being leveraged for.
    A small percentage of women are arrested for violent crime, 
but even then, a lot of times the violent crimes is related to 
abuse. It is related to responding to someone who is abusing 
her, especially women who are arrested for murder. So, this 
gives us an opportunity to really examine gender-specific 
criminal justice reform.
    A comment on pregnancy. When a woman delivers and is 
separated from her child, like was shown in the clip, it is not 
just a matter that she is sad; it is massive physiological 
changes that happen during and especially after pregnancy. 
There is a massive decrease in hormones that was happening to 
that woman. When women go into postpartum depression, it is 
physiological as well as psychological. So, we can only imagine 
what happens to women who are put in solitary confinement 
during pregnancy or after delivery. It puts them at risk for 
suicide.
    So, I am glad to see that there is interest and support on 
the issue from both sides of the aisle. The conversation that 
we have had with each other during this hearing, I believe that 
this could be the first step toward developing comprehensive 
legislation that addresses criminal justice reform that is also 
gender specific.
    Thank you very much, and the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]


                                APPENDIX

=======================================================================

    Testimony submitted by Prison Fellowship to the House, 
Committee on the Judiciary, for the record.

                 TESTIMONY OF PRISON FELLOWSHIP

    Prison Fellowship is the nation's largest Christian 
nonprofit serving prisoners, former prisoners, and their 
families, and a leading advocate for criminal justice reform. 
The organization was founded in 1976 by Charles Colson, a 
former aide to President Nixon who served a seven-month 
sentence for a Watergate-related crime. For over 40 years, our 
ministry has shared the new hope and life purpose available 
through Christ to men and women in prison. Those who once broke 
the law are transformed and mobilized to serve their community, 
replacing the cycle of crime with a cycle of renewal.
    Our prison events, classes, and programs reach more than 
375,000 prisoners each year. We have over 11,200 Prison 
Fellowship volunteers across the United States who make it 
possible to serve people in prison and nearly 300,000 children 
of incarcerated parents annually.
    Located in 90 prisons in 28 states, the Prison Fellowship 
Academy is the organization's most intensive in-prison program, 
taking men and women through a voluntary, holistic life 
transformation spanning months, where they are mentored by 
Prison Fellowship staff and volunteers to lead lives of purpose 
and productivity inside and outside of prison. The Prison 
Fellowship Academy is designed to address criminogenic needs 
including anti-social cognition, anti-social companions, anti-
social personality and temperament, family and marital 
relationships, substance abuse, employment, education, and 
recreation activities. In three State prisons in Texas and 
Minnesota, Prison Fellowship Academy participants make up 
entire prison units. The Prison Fellowship Academy and other 
faith-based classes are currently funded entirely through the 
generosity of private donors and foundations.
    130 federal prisons participate in our Angel Tree program 
and 137 federal prisons have Prison Fellowship connection 
classes, which include Bible studies, recovery groups, and 
seminars on topics from marriage, anger management, and more. 
Prison Fellowship has a pending request to launch an Academy in 
the federal system and seeks to be recognized as an educational 
program under the Bureau of Prisons' reentry program division 
rather than only as a religious service under the chaplaincy 
division.

    Incarcerated Women and the National Challenge Before Us

    We commend the House Judiciary Committee for drawing 
attention to the challenges facing female prisoners through the 
``Women and Girls in the Criminal Justice System'' hearing. We 
are honored to provide our insights drawn from our policy work 
and direct ministry to women impacted by crime and 
incarceration. Recent trends in corrections make the 
committee's dialogue on these matters urgent. The female prison 
population has increased by over 750 percent since 1980.\1\ 
Women now comprise roughly 7% of the total incarcerated 
population.\2\ At the end of 2017, there were more than 224,000 
women behind bars.\3\ While this increase in incarceration has 
impacted women of every background, striking racial disparities 
are present, with the imprisonment rate for African-American 
females double that of White females.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Sentencing Project, Fact Sheet: Incarcerated Women and Girls, 
The Sentencing Project (2016), https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/02/Incarcerated-Women-and-Girls.pdf.
    \2\ Jennifer Bronson & Ann Carson, Prisoners in 2017, Bureau of 
Justice Statistics (April 2019), https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/
p17.pdf.
    \3\ Id.
    \4\ Id. at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Just as troubling as these statistics are the histories of 
brokenness so many incarcerated women bring with them to their 
sentences. Data from a Bureau of Justice Assistance study of 
female jails makes clear that women who commit crime have often 
been victims of violence themselves. Eighty-six percent of 
respondents report sexual violence in their lifetime, 77 
percent report partner violence, and 60 percent report violence 
by a caregiver or parent.\5\ Over 65 percent of women 
incarcerated in prisons and jails identify a history of serious 
mental health problems or serious psychological distress--rates 
substantially higher than their male peers.\6\ Between 2007 and 
2009, 69.2 percent of female State prisoners met the Diagnostic 
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria for drug 
abuse or dependency.\7\ Prison Fellowship does not highlight 
these sober realities to downplay personal responsibility for 
crime or deny that incarceration can be necessary on grounds of 
public safety and just punishment. Rather, these unsettling 
facts make the need for a corrections culture centered around 
the human dignity of incarcerated women--and their capacity for 
personal development and second chances--all the more urgent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Shannon Lynch et al., Women's Pathways to Jail: The Roles and 
Intersections of Serious Mental Illness and Trauma, Bureau of Justice 
Assistance (September 2012), https://www.bja.gov/Publications/
Women_Pathways_to_Jail.pdf.
    \6\ Jennifer Bronson and Marcus Berzofsky, Indicators of Mental 
Health Problems Reported by Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2011-12, Bureau 
of Justice Statistics (June 2017), https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/
imhprpji1112.pdf.
    \7\ Jennifer Bronson, et. al, Drug Abuse, Dependence, and Abuse 
among State Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2007-2009, Bureau of Justice 
Statistics (June 2017), https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/
dudaspji0709.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Our Direct Ministry and Policy Vision

    Prison Fellowship's direct programming serves incarcerated 
women as they navigate a corrections system primarily designed 
with men in mind. Our evidence-based Academy program is now 
active in over 19 women's prisons in 14 states, with the 
strategic goal of ensuring a presence in at least one women's 
prison in every State by 2026. At a Southern California jail, 
Prison Fellowship is piloting the Create New Beginnings 
curriculum, using art as a restorative vehicle to help women in 
prison navigate topics like shame, empathy, and forgiveness.
    Throughout our history, Prison Fellowship has also been 
blessed by the contributions of formerly incarcerated women on 
our staff. We would be remiss not to mention here in particular 
Mary Kay Beard, a former federal prisoner sentenced to a 21-
year sentence who would go on to encounter the Christian faith 
and found Angel Tree, now one of the American church's most 
crucial expressions of the Gospel's love for children impacted 
by incarceration.\8\ In 2017, Prison Fellowship acquired 
Daughters of Destiny, a Florida-based ministry to incarcerated 
women co-founded by Annie Goebel, who was formerly incarcerated 
and continues to serve on Prison Fellowship's staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Steve Rempe, The Origins of Angel Tree, Prison Fellowship 
(December 2, 2014), https://www.prisonfellowship.org/2014/12/the-
origins-of-angel-tree/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These direct encounters remind Prison Fellowship of the 
urgency for policies that make our justice system more 
restorative, evidence-based, and constructive. At the same 
time, we know the specific challenges of women in our prison 
system require specific policy remedies. Restrictive housing 
and physical restraints should not be used for pregnant 
incarcerated women, whether during term, in labor, or recovery, 
unless required to address clear and present danger to the 
woman, her child, or others.\9\ An estimated three to five 
percent of women in prison and jail are pregnant.\10\ As a 
ministry that values the sanctity of human life, Prison 
Fellowship urges full access to quality prenatal care for 
incarcerated women and their unborn children. Sixty-one percent 
of female State prisoners have children under the age of 
18.\11\ Access to parenting classes, regular contact with loved 
ones, and placement in facilities within reasonable proximity 
to family Members can allow incarcerated women to grow as 
responsible, engaged mothers. Moreover, the scale of prior 
abuse experienced by incarcerated women demands far more 
expansive trauma-informed care and greater training for 
corrections and programming staff. Finally, we urge 
policymakers to be cognizant of how ``collateral consequences'' 
with limited rationale in public safety, including bans on 
access to nutrition, housing, and other safety net benefits 
placed on individuals with a criminal record, pose particular 
risks to formerly incarcerated women and their children.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Emily Greene and Kate Trammell, Will Corrections Meet the 
Growing Needs of Its Growing Female Prison Population, Prison 
Fellowship (March 19, 2018), https://www.prisonfellow
ship.org/2018/03/will-corrections-meet-needs-growing-female-prison-
population/.
    \10\ Naomi Schaefer Riley, On Prison Nurseries, American Enterprise 
Institute (March 2019), http://www.aei.org/publication/on-prison-
nurseries/.
    \11\ Lauren Glaze and Laura Marushack, Parents in Prison and Their 
Minor Children, Bureau of Justice Statistics (March 2010), https://
www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf.
    \12\ USCCR, Collateral Consequences: The Crossroads of Punishment, 
Redemption, and the Effects on Communities, U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights (June 2019), https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2019/0-13-Collateral-
Consequences.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         State Reforms

    Prison Fellowship has been privileged to advance common 
sense State reforms that recognize the dignity of incarcerated 
women. In December 2018, we supported the American Legislative 
Exchange Council's model policy, ``Dignity for Incarcerated 
Women.'' \13\ In the 2019 Texas legislative session, Prison 
Fellowship supported the passage of House Bill 650, which 
featured several key protections for incarcerated women.\14\ In 
2009, our ministry helped to pass Senate Bill 1290 in New York, 
which allows women who are pregnant to be removed from a prison 
for purposes of receiving proper medical care during childbirth 
and prohibits the shackling of anincarcerated woman during 
delivery of her child.\15\ Moreover, given that one in four 
female State prisoners are sentenced for drug crimes--a rate 
substantially higher than that of their male counterparts--
incarcerated women have particularly benefited from Prison 
Fellowship's successful advocacy for appropriate sentence 
reductions and alternatives to incarceration for certain drug 
offenses.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ ALEC, Dignity for Incarcerated Women, American Legislative 
Exchange Council (November 2018), https://www.alec.org/model-policy/
dignity-for-incarcerated-women/.
    \14\ H.B. 650, 86th Reg. Sess. (T.X. 2019).
    \15\ S.B. 1290, 200-2010 Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2009).
    \16\ Bronson, supra note 2 at 15. (For a summary of Prison 
Fellowship's approach to state-level criminal justice reform, see 
Prison Fellowship, Faith & Justice Legislative Playbook 2018-2019, 
Prison Fellowship (2019), https://www. prisonfellowship.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/06/J_ FLegislativePlaybook2019.pdf.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               The First Step Act Implementation

    Prison Fellowship likewise had the opportunity to play a 
role alongside many Members of this Committee in the passage of 
the bipartisan First Step Act in December 2018. Key features of 
this legislation have already impacted women in our federal 
prison system. The bill codified certain Bureau of Prisons' 
policies to provide female hygiene items free of charge and 
limit the use of restraints on pregnant women.\17\ Seventeen 
women have received sentencing reductions for certain drug 
crimes under the legislation's retroactive application of the 
Fair Sentencing Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\  Nathan James, The First Step Act of 2018: An Overview, 
Congressional Research Service (March 2019), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/
misc/R45558.pdf; Office of Public Affairs, Department of Justice 
Announces First Step Act Implementation Progress, United States 
Department of Justice (April 2019), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/
department-justice-announces-first-step-act-implementation-progress.
    \18\  USSC, First Step Act of 2018 Resentencing Provisions 
Retroactivity Data Report, United States Sentencing Commission (June 
2019), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-
publications/retroactivity-analyses/first-step-act/201900607-First-
Step-Act-Retro.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Key provisions of the First Step Act nevertheless remain to 
be implemented, making congressional oversight crucial for the 
restoration of incarcerated women. Roughly half of all female 
federal prisoners are sentenced for drug crimes, and the First 
Step Act's provisions for reforming punishment for these 
offenses await further implementation.\19\ The absence of a 
United States Sentencing Commission with a quorum means the 
sentencing guidelines have yet to reflect the First Step Act's 
sentencing reforms for certain drug offenses. The Department of 
Justice and Independent Review Committee have put consideration 
and effort into developing the new Risk and Needs Assessment 
for federal prisons. These systems are used by numerous State 
and local justice systems to identify the criminogenic risks 
and corresponding recidivism-reducing programs for each 
incarcerated person.\20\ Prison Fellowship urges further 
refinement and timely implementation of the assessment, and the 
corresponding expansion of quality prison programming. The 
establishment of this system will not only allow incarcerated 
women to have a more constructive experience in prison, but 
also allow them to earn certain opportunities, such as expanded 
contact with family Members or, based on their risk level and 
sentence type, earned-time credits to complete more of their 
sentence at a residential reentry center or in home 
confinement.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\  Bronson, supra note 2 at 16; James, supra note 17 at 8-9.
    \20\  Public Safety Performance Project, Risk/Needs Assessment 101: 
Science Reveals New Tools To Manage Offenders, Pew Center on the States 
(September 2011), https://www. pewtrusts.org//media/legacy/
uploadedfiles/pcs_ assets/2011/pewrisk assessmentbriefpdf.pdf.
    \21\  James, supra note 17 at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We call on Congress to cement this shift to a more 
constructive federal prison culture through explicit, full 
funding of the First Step Act in FY2020 appropriations and in 
future appropriations cycles.
    Geographic distance between federal prisoners and their 
home communities continues to weaken the family engagement and 
social support crucial for successful reentry.\22\ Research 
from the Chuck Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections found 
in 2014 that 27 percent and 25 percent of federal prisons lived 
more than 500 miles or between 250 and 500 miles from their 
primary residence.\23\ The First Step Act codified an 
established BOP policy to house all prisoners, subject to other 
considerations, within 500 miles of their primary residence. 
Prison Fellowship recognizes how the BOP must carefully weigh 
this goal alongside numerous logistical, fiscal, and security 
priorities, including the very limited number of female BOP 
facilities. Nevertheless, we believe greater proximity between 
incarcerated women and their families will strengthen family 
relationships, including for those with children, and allow 
women to draw on the social networks needed to break the habits 
and mindsets that first brought them to prison. We therefore 
urge BOP to consciously pursue creative solutions to continue 
to reduce the geographic distance between incarcerated women 
and their home communities, so that as many women as possible 
can live within 500--and preferably 250--miles of their primary 
residence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ The Chuck Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections, Final 
Recommendations of the Chuck Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections, 
Urban Institute (January 2016), https://www
.urban.org/research/publication/transforming-prisons-restoring-lives/
view/full_report.
    \23\ Id. at 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As the BOP continues to expand quality correctional 
programming under the First Step Act, it must be cognizant of 
crucial programmatic gaps for incarcerated women. A September 
2016 Boston Consulting Group highlighted several ``unmet 
population needs'' among federal female prisoners for 
``intensive, residential mental health treatment'' and 
``relationships management and self-management and control 
programming.'' \24\ We urge the BOP to revisit these needs 
among incarcerated women in the federal system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Boston Consulting Group, Reducing Recidivism Through 
Programming in the Federal Prison Population, Department of Justice 
(September 2016), https://www.justice.gov/archives/dag/page/file/
914031/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Additional Recommendations

    Addressing the unique needs of incarcerated women should 
rank as a key next step for both the Administration and 
Congress in building on the momentum of the First Step Act. In 
particular, we urge both Congress and the BOP to revisit some 
of the key recommendations of the Chuck Colson Task Force, on 
which Prison Fellowship's Senior Vice President of Advocacy and 
Public Policy Craig DeRoche had the privilege to serve. The 
Task Force's promotion on greater family engagement is 
particularly salient for incarcerated women. While commending 
serious BOP progress on this issue, the Task Force did 
emphasize lingering barriers, such as ``visitation hours that 
were modified or restricted without adequate notice or 
explanation; visitation guidelines that varied across 
facilities, and even within facilities over time; and 
visitation privileges that were perceived to be restricted as a 
disciplinary measure.'' \25\ Specifically, the Task Force 
called for the establishment of a BOP ``central family affairs 
and visitation office to oversee prison visitation procedures 
in the interests of facilitating family visits while ensuring 
security is not compromised, expand video conferencing and 
programs designed to enhance the bonds between incarcerated 
parents and their children, and increase other forms of support 
for families of those in prison.'' \26\ Given some of the 
extreme geographic distances between certain federal prisoners 
and their families, the Task Force also recommended greater 
contracting ``with State facilities when no appropriate federal 
facility is located within reasonable proximity [of home.]'' 
\27\ We encourage this Committee and the BOP to revisit these 
recommendations and evaluate paths for implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ The Chuck Colson Task Force, supra note 22 at 40.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id. at 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, the scale of abuse and past victimization 
experienced by incarcerated women demands a robust scaling up 
of trauma-informed care. An Office of Inspector General report 
from September 2018 highlighted how ``due to current staffing 
BOP may not be able to ensure that all [female] inmates who are 
eligible for [the trauma treatment] program can participate in 
it before their release from BOP custody.'' \28\ The report 
further noted how the current model for BOP trauma-informed 
care could only reach ``3% of BOP's sentenced female inmate 
population'' at a given time.\29\ At an average BOP female 
institution, 17 percent of prisoners are on a waiting list for 
trauma care.\30\ The painful psychological wounds experienced 
by too many incarcerated women in federal prisons are not being 
met with robust, easily accessible trauma-informed care, and we 
urge greater BOP attention and funding and corresponding 
congressional oversight and action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ Id. at 19.
    \29\ Id. at 21.
    \30\ Office of the Inspector General, Review of the Federal Bureau 
of Prisons' Management of its Female Inmate Population, Department of 
Justice (September 2018), https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2018/
e1805.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thank you for this opportunity to present Prison 
Fellowship's policy recommendations to honor the dignity of 
incarcerated women to the Committee.

                                 [all]