Women in Criminal Justice Reform Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 21, 2026
Bottom line
This comprehensive bill seeks to address systemic issues disproportionately affecting women in the criminal justice system by implementing gender- and trauma-informed policies and programs at various stages of legal involvement.
What it actually does
The bill, titled the "Women in Criminal Justice Reform Act," aims to improve the treatment of women throughout the legal system, from arrest to reentry. It introduces gender-informed practices for law enforcement, reforms bail and custody requirements to support family reunification, expands federal pretrial diversion, modifies drug conspiracy penalties, mandates gender-responsive and trauma-informed care in prisons, and focuses on rehabilitation during supervised release. It also authorizes specific appropriations for new grant programs and prison reforms.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is a necessary step to rectify historical inequities and address the unique needs of women, who often enter the justice system due to trauma, substance abuse, and economic marginalization. They contend that these reforms will reduce recidivism, protect children by preserving family ties, and promote more humane and effective rehabilitation, ultimately leading to safer communities.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that some provisions could weaken law enforcement's ability to combat crime, particularly drug conspiracies, or that the extensive mandates on federal and state agencies could be overly burdensome and costly without sufficient evidence of their effectiveness. Concerns might also be raised about expanded judicial discretion in sentencing and the potential for unintended consequences in child welfare interventions.
The bill is moderately long and covers a wide range of topics, requiring dedicated time for a thorough review, which may exceed the time typically allotted for public scrutiny of complex legislation.
Sec. 101, Title I
Protection of Children at Arrest
This section amends federal law to require federal law enforcement officers to permit arrested custodial parents or guardians of minor or dependent children the opportunity to make arrangements for their children at the time of arrest, including telephone access. It also prohibits referral of children to child welfare agencies unless the parent cannot make arrangements or there is reasonable cause to suspect abuse or neglect, explicitly stating that a drug-related charge alone is not sufficient cause.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for minimizing trauma to children and families during arrests, recognizing that abrupt separation can have lasting negative impacts. It ensures that parents have a chance to secure care, preventing unnecessary child welfare interventions that can destabilize families.
Critics contend
Some critics might argue that this provision could complicate arrest procedures and potentially delay law enforcement actions, especially in urgent situations. Concerns might also be raised about the definition of 'reasonable cause' for child welfare referral, potentially limiting necessary interventions.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the efficiency of law enforcement operations with the welfare of children and families, aiming to reduce the collateral consequences of arrest on non-offending family members.
Sec. 102, Title I
Grant Program for Gender-Informed Training of Local Law Enforcement Officers
This section establishes a grant program, administered by the Attorney General, to fund gender-informed training for state and local law enforcement officers. States receiving grants must require annual training (8 hours for academy enrollees, 4 hours for other officers) on topics such as trauma, sexual abuse, family issues, physical/mental health, racial disparities, and specific needs of pregnant persons. It authorizes $20 million annually for fiscal years 2027-2031.
Sec. 203, Title II
Updating Custody Requirements to Preserve Families
This section amends the Social Security Act to significantly alter the conditions under which states may file for termination of parental rights. It changes the '15 of 22 months' rule to '24 consecutive months' in foster care and adds requirements for states to demonstrate clear and convincing evidence of providing services for reunification. Crucially, it prohibits termination of parental rights if a child is in kinship care, if the parent is actively engaged in services, or if the basis is principally due to parental incarceration, DHS detention, or deportation.
Sec. 301, Title III
Federal Pretrial Diversion Program
This section establishes a federal pretrial diversion program, allowing courts to divert criminal cases from traditional prosecution into a recidivism reduction plan. Successful completion results in a 'diversionary disposition,' such as not filing charges, dismissal of charges, or a conviction without incarceration. The program requires voluntary agreement, waiver of speedy trial rights, and access to counsel. It prioritizes applicants with histories of trauma, substance abuse, mental illness, or vulnerable circumstances.
Sec. 401, Title IV
Focusing Penalties for Drug Conspiracy
This section amends the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act to change the penalties for drug conspiracy. Instead of being subject to the same penalties as the object offense (which can include lengthy mandatory minimums), individuals convicted of conspiracy would face a maximum of 5 years imprisonment or a fine, or both, provided this penalty does not exceed the penalty for the underlying substantive offense.
Sec. 402, Title IV
Increasing Judicial Discretion to Sentence Less Culpable Individuals
This section amends 18 U.S.C. 3553(e) to allow courts, on their own motion or a party's motion, to impose a sentence below a statutory minimum. This discretion is granted if the defendant demonstrates a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury preventing substantial assistance, if the prosecution cannot show the defendant has useful information, or if the defendant provided substantial assistance but the government did not file a motion. It also clarifies that drug quantity in conspiracy cases is limited to the defendant's own acts and co-conspirator acts they agreed to and knew of.
Sec. 501, Title V
Gender and Trauma-Informed Sentencing
This section amends 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2) to require courts to consider specific mitigating factors during sentencing, including any history of trauma, substance use, or medical and mental health disorders. It also mandates that sentencing should provide defendants with gender-responsive educational or vocational training, medical care, trauma-informed mental health care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.
Sec. 601, Title VI
Health Care Needs of Incarcerated Women in the Bureau of Prisons
This section mandates that the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) ensure incarcerated women have access to basic, gender-specific health care. It specifies requirements for obstetric and gynecological care, including screenings upon intake and annually, testing for various infections, breast examinations, and pelvic examinations with Pap smears and HPV testing. It also mandates HPV vaccination for juveniles, ADA-compliant dental care, and detailed care for high-risk incarcerated persons (e.g., bone density, diabetes, cancer screenings). Crucially, it ensures confidentiality of medical records.
Sec. 602, Title VI
Trauma-Informed Care in Prisons
This section mandates the Director of the BOP to develop and implement national standards for trauma-informed care, including training for all officers and employees, a trauma-screening program upon intake, and trauma-informed therapy and counseling programs. These programs must be administered by licensed mental health professionals and include various evidence-based modalities. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is required to submit annual reports on screening and program participation.
Sec. 606, Title VI
Gender-Responsive Prison Conditions
This section mandates that all institutions housing female incarcerated persons maintain the same minimum standard of care and conditions as male institutions, explicitly stating that lack of resources is not an excuse for failing to meet constitutional or statutory rights. It defines 'standard of conditions' to include safe/orderly conditions, preparation for law-abiding life, protection from harm, respect for human rights, humane living conditions (including natural light, clean facilities, adequate toilets/washbasins), appropriate clothing, out-of-cell time, recreation, and congregate dining. It also specifically addresses dignified treatment and adequate hygienic care during menstruation.
Sec. 609, Title VI
Gender-Responsive Discipline Policies
This section mandates the BOP to develop gender-responsive discipline policies, reviewing existing policies for non-gender-responsive elements. New policies must focus on safety, motivation, self-management, and understanding gender-based peer dynamics and trauma roots of behavior. It requires addressing gender-responsive and trauma-informed approaches, determining appropriate sanctions and supports, and eliminating extremely punitive sanctions like shackling and segregated housing except in severe danger cases. Loss of visitation is reserved for high and greatest severity offenses. Annual reports on disciplinary actions, disaggregated by demographics, are required.
Sec. 702, Title VII
Focusing Supervision on the Rehabilitation of Women
This section mandates that all training for probation officers include gender-informed supervision practices, focusing on the specific needs of women in the justice system, including trauma, abuse, family issues, mental/physical health, racial disparities, and parental supervision/arrest issues. It also amends 18 U.S.C. 3603(3) to explicitly state that the purpose of supervision is to effect the 'successful rehabilitation and reintegration' of individuals into society, using trauma-informed and restorative techniques, with an understanding of collateral consequences.
Explicitly states that 'A drug related charge on its own does not constitute sufficient cause to suspect abuse or neglect' for the purpose of referring a child to a child welfare agency at the time of a parent's arrest.
Sec. 101(a), Title I
Why it matters:While it clarifies a specific condition, its placement might be seen as a way to avoid drawing immediate attention to a potentially controversial limitation on child welfare interventions in drug-related cases.
Case for: Proponents argue this prevents automatic, often unwarranted, child welfare involvement based solely on a drug charge, which disproportionately affects certain communities and can traumatize children without evidence of actual abuse or neglect.
Case against: Critics might argue that any drug-related charge could indicate a risk to a child's welfare, and this provision could hinder child protective services from intervening when necessary, potentially putting children at risk.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly reduce the number of children unnecessarily separated from parents or referred to child welfare agencies solely due to a parent's drug charge, impacting thousands of families annually.
Amends Section 475(5)(E) of the Social Security Act to prohibit the filing or joining of a petition for modification or termination of parental rights if a parent is actively engaged in services to address the reasons the child entered care, or if the basis is principally on the incarceration, DHS detention, or deportation of a parent.
Sec. 203, Title II
Why it matters:Amending existing code is standard legislative practice, but the profound impact on child welfare policy, particularly regarding parental incarceration and immigration status, might be less visible than if it were a new, standalone policy statement.
Case for: Proponents argue this protects parental rights and promotes family reunification by preventing permanent separation based on circumstances that can be addressed or are beyond a parent's immediate control, such as incarceration or deportation.
Case against: Critics might argue that this could prolong a child's time in foster care, delaying permanency and stability, and potentially placing children at risk if parents are unable to fully address the issues that led to foster care placement.
Estimated impact: This could significantly alter child welfare outcomes for thousands of families, particularly those affected by the criminal justice and immigration systems, potentially increasing reunification rates and reducing terminations of parental rights.
Amends 18 U.S.C. 3661 to prohibit courts from considering, except for purposes of mitigating a sentence, any act for which a person was adjudicated not guilty after trial or for which a criminal charge or juvenile information was dismissed upon a motion for acquittal.
Sec. 403, Title IV
Why it matters:This is a significant change to federal sentencing practice, addressing the controversial issue of 'acquitted conduct' sentencing. Its placement within a broader criminal justice reform bill, rather than as a standalone sentencing reform measure, might be a tactical choice to bundle it with other provisions.
Case for: Proponents argue this prevents judges from effectively punishing defendants for crimes they were acquitted of or charges that were dismissed, upholding the presumption of innocence and due process. It ensures sentencing is based on proven conduct.
Case against: Critics might argue that judges should have access to all relevant information about a defendant's conduct, even if not leading to a conviction, to make a fully informed sentencing decision about the defendant's character and potential for future harm.
Estimated impact: This provision would fundamentally alter federal sentencing practices, potentially leading to shorter sentences for some defendants by limiting the scope of information judges can consider, impacting thousands of cases annually.
Mandates that all medical reports and health records drafted or stored within the Bureau of Prisons may not be exchanged, transferred, or used for the purpose of any criminal investigation or prosecution federally, or under the laws of any State, local or Tribal government.
Sec. 601(g), Title VI
Why it matters:While a crucial safeguard, its placement might be seen as a way to include a significant privacy right without highlighting it as a standalone policy, which could potentially face opposition from law enforcement agencies seeking access to such information.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures incarcerated individuals can seek necessary medical and mental health care without fear that their health information will be used against them in criminal proceedings, promoting trust and better health outcomes.
Case against: Critics might argue that this blanket prohibition could hinder legitimate criminal investigations, particularly if medical records contain evidence relevant to a crime or a defendant's mental state relevant to a defense.
Estimated impact: This provision would establish a strong privacy firewall for medical records within federal prisons, impacting all incarcerated individuals and potentially influencing how medical information is handled in state and local correctional facilities.
Amends Section 3635(3) of title 18, United States Code, to explicitly require that early release programs under the First Step Act 'are gender-responsive, in compliance with section 5 of title VI of the Gender-Informed Justice Act'.
Sec. 605(b), Title VI
Why it matters:Amending existing law is standard, but cross-referencing within the same bill to define a key term (gender-responsive) within an existing, well-known reform (First Step Act) can obscure the direct policy link and its implications.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that the benefits of the First Step Act, intended to reduce recidivism and promote rehabilitation, are effectively extended to women by requiring programs to be specifically designed to address their unique needs and pathways to crime.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it aims to improve the effectiveness of existing programs rather than creating new ones or altering fundamental eligibility. Potential concerns might be about the cost of adapting existing programs.
Estimated impact: This provision would ensure that federal early release programs are tailored to better serve incarcerated women, potentially improving their rehabilitation outcomes and reducing recidivism rates among this population.