Bill Overview
Title: Protecting the Health and Wellness of Babies and Pregnant Women in Custody Act
Description: This bill establishes requirements to address the health needs of incarcerated women related to pregnancy and childbirth. The bill requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics to collect data on the health needs of incarcerated pregnant women at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. With respect to incarcerated women at the federal level, the bill requires the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide appropriate services and programs to address the health and safety needs related to pregnancy and childbirth, as well as appropriate health care to a woman with a high-risk pregnancy; limits the use of restrictive housing for prisoners who are pregnant or in postpartum recovery; prohibits the use of solitary confinement for an incarcerated pregnant woman in her third trimester; requires the BOP to annually report on the number of administrative claims and appeals filed by pregnant inmates; and requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study the services and protections for pregnant incarcerated women in federal pretrial detention facilities. With respect to incarcerated women at the state and local level, the bill requires the GAO to study the services and protections for pregnant incarcerated women in state and local correctional settings.
Sponsors: Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
Target Audience
Population: Incarcerated pregnant women and postpartum women
Estimated Size: 13000
- The bill specifically targets women who are currently incarcerated and who are either pregnant or have recently given birth (postpartum).
- Globally, the number of incarcerated women is estimated at over 700,000. However, considering only those who are pregnant at any given time reduces this number significantly.
- Data suggests that a significant percentage, but not all, of incarcerated women are of childbearing age. Not all of them will be pregnant during their incarceration.
- Studies suggest that in the U.S., approximately 3-10% of incarcerated women are pregnant upon intake or will give birth during incarceration, which gives us an estimation of a target group size.
Reasoning
- The policy directly impacts a small but specific group: incarcerated pregnant women and those in postpartum stages. Given the budget limit, the policy will prioritize federal level facilities first, possibly expanding to state and local facilities as more data becomes available through studies conducted.
- The budget constraints imply that improvements would likely need to be strategic, focusing on high-impact areas such as health services, minimizing the use of solitary confinement, and data collection needed for future modifications of the policy.
- Understanding the varied backgrounds of incarcerated women—such as those who may have been economically disadvantaged or socially marginalized before imprisonment—is crucial as these factors affect their wellbeing.
- Most of the U.S. population will have no direct interaction with or perception of the policy, hence minimal or no impact on their self-reported wellbeing scores.
Simulated Interviews
unemployed (Chicago, IL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having been pregnant during my time in jail was daunting. There were no adequate services for pregnant women.
- This policy seems like a good step forward. If implemented well, it could greatly ease some of the stress.
- Access to healthcare while pregnant is so vital, especially in confinement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 1 |
lawyer (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I won't personally be affected by the policy, working with clients and colleagues, I see immense potential in this.
- Addressing the specific needs of pregnant incarcerated women can have a beneficial trickle-down effect on their families too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
healthcare worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've long seen gaps in how we treat pregnant women behind bars.
- If enacted, this policy could standardize care and protect vulnerable women and their babies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
social worker (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reentry is tough and having had inadequate maternal care only adds to the challenges.
- Enhancing the healthcare framework within prisons can set a better foundation for these women post-release.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From an academic perspective, it's vital to consider gender-specific policies in the criminal justice system.
- The policy is a realistic and necessary intervention for some significant, neglected issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
retail manager (Miami, FL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies that invest in humane treatment within prisons reflect our society's values.
- This kind of policy makes me more confident about my taxes supporting crucial reforms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
non-profit director (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We have long advocated for such changes, this policy could be a game-changer for many women.
- Effective implementation will however require close monitoring and trained staff.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
human rights activist (Portland, OR)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful about this bill, it affects an overlooked segment of the prison population.
- Monitoring the policy's rollout will be crucial to ensure promises translate into reality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
correctional officer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a necessary policy to improve conditions and health outcomes for pregnant inmates.
- It will make a difference to how we manage health needs and hopefully reduce high stress levels in our jobs too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
graduate student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial for my generation to understand and support humane policies within prisons.
- This act could lay foundations for further necessary reforms within correctional health care.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $35000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $45000000)
Year 2: $36000000 (Low: $26000000, High: $46000000)
Year 3: $37000000 (Low: $27000000, High: $47000000)
Year 5: $39000000 (Low: $29000000, High: $49000000)
Year 10: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $55000000)
Year 100: $75000000 (Low: $57000000, High: $95000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's emphasis on enhanced data collection necessitates infrastructure and analytical resources that could scale based on initial results affecting cost projections.
- Impact variations exist between federal and state systems due to differences in existing infrastructures and policy baselines.
- The health disparities addressed by the policy might have broader social impacts that are challenging to quantify in purely fiscal terms.