Bill Overview
Title: Preventing Violence Against Female Inmates Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes a framework to prohibit correctional institutions at the federal and state levels from using gender identity to house inmates of one biological sex with inmates of the other biological sex.
Sponsors: Rep. Crawford, Eric A. "Rick" [R-AR-1]
Target Audience
Population: Female inmates and staff at correctional institutions
Estimated Size: 200000
- The bill directly impacts inmates housed in correctional institutions who may be subject to housing decisions based on gender identity.
- According to reports, there are over 150,000 female inmates in state and federal prisons in the United States.
- The bill could also indirectly impact correctional institution staff and the policies regarding inmate safety and housing procedures on a broader scale, including potentially influencing policies in related areas.
- Internationally, the issue of housing in relation to gender identity in prisons is also present, though the legal frameworks and scale differ between countries.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy is primarily female inmates in correctional facilities, with secondary impacts on correctional staff.
- The budget constraints require efficient allocation, focusing first on facilities with the highest number of impacted individuals.
- The Cantril wellbeing scale is used to assess changes in perceived life quality among these individuals, which is essential to gauge policy success.
- Not all inmates will be impacted equally; those currently affected by gender identity-based housing are most relevant.
- Staff may experience operational changes or stressors depending on how housing adjustments alter their work environment.
- A range of experiences should be considered, including individuals who support, are indifferent to, or oppose the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Correctional Officer (Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen conflicts arise because of gender identity issues in housing.
- This bill seems like it could reduce some tensions between inmates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Inmate (California)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel uncomfortable being housed with male inmates.
- This policy could help me feel safer and more secure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Inmate (New York)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I want housing policies that consider our safety.
- I hope this legislation leads to improved privacy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Warden (Florida)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might streamline decision-making processes and reduce complaints.
- It could also necessitate training and system adjustments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Inmate (Illinois)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy will help protect women like me from harassment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 1 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 1 |
Inmate advocate (Ohio)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy addresses one aspect of inmates' rights violations, but broader reforms are necessary.
- This is a positive step towards protecting female inmates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
State Correctional Policy Advisor (Nevada)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill could inspire reevaluation of broader institutional policies statewide.
- It may incur initial costs but could lead to long-term savings in management resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Trans rights advocate (Massachusetts)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is concerning as it disregards gender identity in housing decisions.
- It might create more risks for trans inmates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Inmate (Minnesota)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel the policy could make housing safer and more predictable.
- I worry some people will still be unhappy regardless of changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Correctional Officer (Colorado)
Age: 44 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might reduce the administrative burden of managing housing conflicts.
- It remains to be seen if safety improves across the board.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 3: $180000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $220000000)
Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 10: $120000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $150000000)
Year 100: $60000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $80000000)
Key Considerations
- Costs associated with training and compliance monitoring are significant, especially initially.
- The bill could face litigation during implementation, potentially increasing costs and government legal expenditures.
- Over time, savings from reduced violence and associated costs could balance some initial expenses.