HOW “GENDER RESPONSIVE PRISONS” HARM WOMEN, …

1 HOW gender RESPONSIVE PRISONS HARMWOMEN, CHILDREN, AND FAMILIESSPECIAL REPORTON REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA S women S PRISONSFROM CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET MAY 2007 CURB IS A STATEWIDE COALITION OF OVER 40 ORGANIZATIONS WORKING TO CURB prison SPENDINGBY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN prison AND THE NUMBER OF PRISONS IN CALIFORNIA. AcknowledgementsCalifornians United for a Responsible Budget (CURB) thanks the over 3,000people currently imprisoned at Central California women s Facility (CCWF),Valley State prison for women (VSPW), California Institute for women (CIW)and other California women s prisons, who registered their opposition to gender RESPONSIVE prisons and other prison expansion proposals via petitionto the Governor and California Legislature, the over 150 feminist scholars,advocates and policy makers who signed an open letter opposing expansion ofCalifornia s women s prison system, and all those who made contributions to theplanning and development of materials leading to this by Design Action CollectiveLOS ANGELES CONTACTSA New Way of Life Reentry Project Melissa Burch, (323) prison Moratorium Project Craig Gilmore, (213) 742-1836 CONTACTSJ ustice Now Vanessa Huang, (510)

2 839-7654 Resistance Rose Braz, (510) OF CONTENTSI. Introduction5II. Report recent political history of gender RESPONSIVE prisons in CaliforniaIV. Lockdown7 People in California s women s prisonsV. Analysis8 How gender RESPONSIVE prisons harm women , children, and solutions for women , children, and familiesVII. Conclusion12 VIII. Appendices14I. INTRODUCTIONThis special report, Reducing the Number of People inCalifornia s women s Prisons: How gender ResponsivePrisons harm women , Children, and Families,responds to a dangerous and controversial policy thatwould expand the capacity of California s women sprison system already the largest prison system forwomen in the world1 by up to 40% in two policy would expand the capacity of California swomen s prisons by adding a new system of miniprisons Female Rehabilitative CommunityCorrectional Centers (FRCCCs) across the state,3threatening to further inflict the harms of imprisonmenton thousands of California s women , children, andfamilies and further obstruct real public safety whiledraining resources from the state programs andservices that Californians want and REPORT OVERVIEWBACKGROUND:The recent political history of gender RESPONSIVE prisons in.

3 People in California s women s :How gender RESPONSIVE prisons harmwomen, children and :Alternative policy solutions insentencing, parole, reentry, and capacity to reducethe number of people in California s women s prisonsand meet the needs of women , children, and BACKGROUND2005-2006 SESSION SUMMARYThis prison expansion plan was first publiclyproposed by the gender RESPONSIVE StrategiesCommission (GRSC), established in February2005 as an advisory committee to the CaliforniaDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitation(CDCR) to assess and make recommendations onproposed strategies, policies, and plans specific towomen offenders. 4 The GRSC is led by high-ranking correctional staff, criminologists, andrepresentatives of state and local offices. In July2005, the GRSC contracted with Barbara Bloomand Barbara Owens to design correctionalpolicies, programs, and housing strategies thatreflect gender distinctions and address women sissues.

4 5In January 2006, the GRSC identified 4,500people serving time for offenses classified asnonviolent and low-risk , and suitable for releasefrom the state s women s prisons. But, rather thanadvising the CDCR to release these 4,500prisoners and to reunify them with their familiesand communities, the GRSC proposed to build4,500 new FRCCC prison beds to house them,thereby expanding the CDCR s capacity toimprison people in California s women s prisonsby almost 40% in two member Sally Lieber introduced theGRSC s proposal as AB 2066. The Governorincorporated this FRCCC prison expansionproposal into his August 2006 Special Session onprisons, outlining a host of prison expansionproposals. After listening to the concerns of advocates whohave long worked to address the needs of peoplein women s prisons and their children7and to theover 2,000 people currently imprisoned at CentralCalifornia women s Facility (CCWF), Valley StatePrison for women (VSPW), California Institute forWomen (CIW) and other prisons for womenCalifornia, who registered their opposition to the4,500 bed and other prison expansion proposalsvia a 25-foot-long petition to the Governor andLegislature, policymakers and advocates originallydrawn to the FRCCC prison expansion proposal spurported intent of providing services and theauthor s language of community-based alternativesto incarceration 8began joining the opposition.

5 5 FROM CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET MAY 2007In August 2006, Assembly member JackieGoldberg, originally a principal co-author of AB2066, announced her decision to remove hername from the bill before it was reintroduced asABX2 1 during the Governor s special session: It is with much deliberation that I have reachedthe conclusion that AB 2066 is a fraud, arealization that has caused me to change my mindabout legislation that once had my name on it. Therecent contract bid proposal put out by CDCR forAB 2066 is filled with problems that would almostcertainly result in a reduction of services, lessfamily visitation, and countless other custodialissues. AB 2066 will also have the effect ofexpanding our already mammoth prison systemby creating more beds to incarcerate men andwomen, and further exacerbate the alreadyshocking medical and human rights abuses bydecentralizing control of California s urge the Legislature to not be pressuredinto enacting short-sighted legislation as atemporary fix to one problem among many in aprison system that is crying for true reform.

6 9 Susan Burton, a member of the GRSC andexecutive director of A New Way of Life, areentry program in Los Angeles often cited byproponents of the mini- prison expansion proposalas a model, also registered her opposition to theproposal, asserting that the CDCR hasdemonstrated its failure to use resources alreadyavailable to provide services. Expanding theCDCR in the name of services and on the back oftaxpayers is a gross exploitation of power. 102007-2008 SESSION OUTLOOKW hile the 4,500-bed mini- prison expansionproposal stalled on the Assembly floor on the lastnight of the 2005-2006 session, the authorreintroduced the expansion proposal as AB 76 inthe 2007-2008 session. Whereas in the priorsession, AB 2066 and ABX2 1 proposed to build4,500 new prison beds in FRCCCs, AB 76proposes to build 2,900 new prison beds inFRCCCs. According to Assembly member Lieber sstaff, this change in number was based on thenumber of bids the CDCR received from its , the Governor s 2007-08 budgetproposes 4,350 new prison beds in the end of February 2007, over 2,800 peoplein California s women s prisons had submitted AB76 opposition letters via joint petition.

7 The FRCCC prison expansion proposal comes at atime when less than 3% of Californians believeprison construction is an infrastructure , prisons are the only area in which themajority of adults, and voters in both parties,prefer to have either less or the samespending 13 a significant opportunity forbipartisan agreement in a session whereleadership is taking cues from what media call aFROM CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET MAY 20076 clear message from voters [that] Californianswant continued bipartisan cooperation and resultsfrom the Republican governor and Democrat-dominated Legislature. 14 The FRCCC prison expansion proposal also comesin a session where the state faces a $ billiondeficit in FY 2007/2008 and at least a $5 billiondeficit in FY 2008 FRCCC prisonexpansion proposal, as considered during theGovernor s special session, was estimated to cost$294 million in operating costs the FRCCC and other prison expansionproposals outlined by the Governor, prison costsare projected to climb to over $10 billion in FY2007/2008, excluding capital outlay and debtservice more tax dollars going into the CDCR isnot something Californians want, need, or canafford especially when the costs of stateprograms and services they need and want arealso estimated to increase, and when over thenext threeyears.

8 Californians will spend anestimated $10 billion more than in the past forservices already rendered in order pay backexisting among the Legislative Analyst s Office srecommendations to the Legislature in theGovernor s 2006 Special Session on prisons wasto consider the prison expansion proposals lackof alternative strategies that could reduce theprison population. In many cases, populationreduction strategies would relieve overcrowdingandreduce state costs while minimizing the risk topublic safety. 19IV. LOCKDOWNW hile the experiences of the 11,687 peoplelocked in California s women s prisons areincreasingly on the radar of the Governor andLegislature, most advocates who have longworked on this issue agree on the pressing needfor policy that reduces the numbers of Californiansand families impacted by imprisonment. And theonly way to ensure we reach that goal is byshrinking the capacity of the women s prisonsystem, not expanding 1970, there were about 5,600 people inwomen s prisons in the entire ;20today thereare over 11,000 in California reliance on imprisonment as thecatchall solution to social problems, the women sprison population has grown by almost 500%since 80% of people in women s prisons areserving time for actions classified as nonviolent,property or drug-related crimes crimes ofsurvival.

9 23 People of color are representeddisproportionately in prison systems across thenation, comprising around 60% of people inwomen s Americans make upnearly 30% of people in California s women sprisons,25but comprise only about 7% of womenin the people in women s prisons suffer fromsevere and often life-threatening physical and/ormental illnesses, reflecting lack of access topreventative care to women and transgenderpeople from communities of color and low-incomecommunities. Being in prison damages one s health. Manypeople in women s prisons are co-infected withHIV and Hepatitis B and/or rates are atleast 10 times higher among prisoners than in thegeneral population,28and the rate is higheramong people in women s prisons than in men C has reached epidemic levelsin California prisons the CDCR estimates that40% of the prison population is infected, with60% of people in women s prisons , prison healthcare is minimal at best,especially for this population, whose specific healthconcerns largely go unaddressed.

10 There is a7 FROM CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET MAY 2007dearth of access to treatment, but also to educationabout serious yet preventable conditions. Therecent takeover by the Federal courts of the state sprison health care system is expected to improvehealth care, but even Constitutionally-acceptableprison health care does not prevent significanthealth deterioration among inside prison , violence against women andtransgender people in the form of human rightsabuses including medical neglect, brutality, andsexual abuse occurs prison , the imprisonment of millions ofpeople of color has a devastating long-termimpact on the communities from which prisonerscome. Economies are deeply affected by the lossof potential wage earners who are removed andsent to prison . Approximately 70% of people inwomen s prisons are mothers, and the majoritywere the primary caretakers of their childrenbefore they were sent to removalfrom the community destroys entire families,leaving children to be raised by the state.