Pennsylvania has received high rankings nationally for its treatment of pregnant inmates, but under a recent settlement, one of its counties will be forced to make changes to its conditions for women who are expecting while in jail.

Allegheny County agreed to a settlement earlier this month in Seitz v. Allegheny County, under which they are changing their policies for housing pregnant inmates. The agreement stems from five inmates' federal lawsuit against the county over the practice of placing pregnant inmates in solitary confinement at the Allegheny County Jail. Four of the five plaintiffs had spent time in solitary confinement, between six and 22 days, during which time they spent 23 to 24 hours per day in an isolated cell.

“This is just one issue of many, many that have bubbled up over time with mass incarceration,” said David Fawcett, of Reed Smith, who worked on the case. “Hopefully this is just another improvement in the system.”

Reed Smith's Fawcett and Aleksandra Phillips worked on the case pro bono, along with the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the Abolitionist Law Center and the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project.

The plaintiffs alleged that they were placed in solitary confinement for minor, non-violent infractions. One of them got nine days for possession of a library book in which another inmate had placed pictures and envelopes, the complaint said, and another got 11 days for owning three pairs of shoes instead of the two pairs allowed.

The complaint alleged that when these women were in solitary, they had no access to personal items, were not allowed to exercise, and rarely got the chance to bathe—one woman who was in solitary confinement for 22 days while two months pregnant was only allowed to shower twice during that time, the complaint said.

As a part of the settlement, the jail is prohibited from placing pregnant women in solitary confinement unless they present a serious risk of physical harm, in which case the decision to place them in solitary confinement must be cleared by a medical professional.

Additionally, the county agreed that jail administrators will ensure pregnant inmates get an appropriate diet and that lactating women will be allowed to use breast pumps. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania will enforce the settlement for three years.

“What we came up with, eventually, is something I'd say is one of the most progressive policies in the country,” Phillips said.

The settlement also included a monetary award of $90,000.

Policies Through Litigation

The result of Seitz has little precedential impact, Bret Grote of the Abolitionist Law Center noted, because it's a settlement. But it could be a model for other incarcerated individuals, their families and lawyers, he said.

Allegheny County is not the first to reach such an agreement. New York state and the New York Civil Liberties Union announced a settlement nearly two years ago that overhauled the rules on solitary confinement, including protections for pregnant inmates. The U.S. Justice Department has also released its own recommendations.

Despite the conditions described in the complaint against Allegheny County, Pennsylvania has actually received high grades for its treatment of pregnant inmates. In the National Women's Law Center's 2010 report “Mothers Behind Bars,” Pennsylvania received a grade of A-minus, the highest of any state. Part of that score was not related to conditions within the prison, but the state's likelihood of using alternatives to incarceration for family reasons.

It's not that states have bad policies. It's that they lack policies at all on how to manage pregnant inmates, Fawcett and Phillips said.

In crafting the settlement agreement, the plaintiffs' lawyers “looked at areas in the country that had fairly comprehensive pregnant inmate and lactating inmate policies,” Phillips said. “What we quickly found out was there were not that many.”

Some might have a rule here or there, but no comprehensive set of guidelines, Phillips said. So instead the lawyers brainstormed the needs that all pregnant women would have to ensure her own and the baby's health, and applied that to the prison environment. Phillips also drew extensively on her own experience as a mother, she said.

A lot of prisonwide policies—those affecting inmate nutrition, the amount of exercise they receive, their ability to contact individuals outside the prison—had to be adapted for pregnant inmates, Fawcett said.

“The answers for a pregnant women are different than for other people, because you've got other people involved,” he said, namely, the child, the other parent and family members.

Because the court will continue to enforce the Seitz agreement, Fawcett said the inmates' lawyers will have a hand in the next steps as well. They will monitor the status of the pregnant inmates and the prison's compliance with policy. And Fawcett said he hopes the settlement will have reach outside Allegheny County.

“We hope that not just in Pennsylvania but nationwide there will be benchmarking,” he said. “We want people to know of this because we know other jurisdictions have the exact same problems.”

In Pennsylvania, the Department of Corrections conducts inspections at county prisons, but does not oversee prison policies, according to a spokeswoman. Still, the department keeps statistics on the prisons. For instance, counties are required to report any time they use restraints on pregnant women. From July 2016 to June 2017, there were 10 such incidents involving eight individuals from among 58 institutions that house women inmates.

When statewide policies or legislation don't provide overarching protections, Fawcett and Grote said litigation is often the necessary avenue to change policy.

Incarcerated people tend not to have much political clout, Grote noted, and “legislatures tend not to want to get into the minutiae of managing these institutions.”

In many cases, Fawcett said, the government will not enact change without some sort of litigation.

“Mass incarceration, and all the issues that come out of it, is something we lawyers need to be attuned to,” he said. “The more attorneys and lawyers that pay attention and get involved, the better.”

John Bacharach of the Allegheny County Law Department declined to comment on the case or the settlement agreement.

Pennsylvania has received high rankings nationally for its treatment of pregnant inmates, but under a recent settlement, one of its counties will be forced to make changes to its conditions for women who are expecting while in jail.

Allegheny County agreed to a settlement earlier this month in Seitz v. Allegheny County, under which they are changing their policies for housing pregnant inmates. The agreement stems from five inmates' federal lawsuit against the county over the practice of placing pregnant inmates in solitary confinement at the Allegheny County Jail. Four of the five plaintiffs had spent time in solitary confinement, between six and 22 days, during which time they spent 23 to 24 hours per day in an isolated cell.

“This is just one issue of many, many that have bubbled up over time with mass incarceration,” said David Fawcett, of Reed Smith, who worked on the case. “Hopefully this is just another improvement in the system.”

Reed Smith's Fawcett and Aleksandra Phillips worked on the case pro bono, along with the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the Abolitionist Law Center and the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project.

The plaintiffs alleged that they were placed in solitary confinement for minor, non-violent infractions. One of them got nine days for possession of a library book in which another inmate had placed pictures and envelopes, the complaint said, and another got 11 days for owning three pairs of shoes instead of the two pairs allowed.

The complaint alleged that when these women were in solitary, they had no access to personal items, were not allowed to exercise, and rarely got the chance to bathe—one woman who was in solitary confinement for 22 days while two months pregnant was only allowed to shower twice during that time, the complaint said.

As a part of the settlement, the jail is prohibited from placing pregnant women in solitary confinement unless they present a serious risk of physical harm, in which case the decision to place them in solitary confinement must be cleared by a medical professional.

Additionally, the county agreed that jail administrators will ensure pregnant inmates get an appropriate diet and that lactating women will be allowed to use breast pumps. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania will enforce the settlement for three years.

“What we came up with, eventually, is something I'd say is one of the most progressive policies in the country,” Phillips said.

The settlement also included a monetary award of $90,000.

Policies Through Litigation

The result of Seitz has little precedential impact, Bret Grote of the Abolitionist Law Center noted, because it's a settlement. But it could be a model for other incarcerated individuals, their families and lawyers, he said.

Allegheny County is not the first to reach such an agreement. New York state and the New York Civil Liberties Union announced a settlement nearly two years ago that overhauled the rules on solitary confinement, including protections for pregnant inmates. The U.S. Justice Department has also released its own recommendations.

Despite the conditions described in the complaint against Allegheny County, Pennsylvania has actually received high grades for its treatment of pregnant inmates. In the National Women's Law Center's 2010 report “Mothers Behind Bars,” Pennsylvania received a grade of A-minus, the highest of any state. Part of that score was not related to conditions within the prison, but the state's likelihood of using alternatives to incarceration for family reasons.

It's not that states have bad policies. It's that they lack policies at all on how to manage pregnant inmates, Fawcett and Phillips said.

In crafting the settlement agreement, the plaintiffs' lawyers “looked at areas in the country that had fairly comprehensive pregnant inmate and lactating inmate policies,” Phillips said. “What we quickly found out was there were not that many.”

Some might have a rule here or there, but no comprehensive set of guidelines, Phillips said. So instead the lawyers brainstormed the needs that all pregnant women would have to ensure her own and the baby's health, and applied that to the prison environment. Phillips also drew extensively on her own experience as a mother, she said.

A lot of prisonwide policies—those affecting inmate nutrition, the amount of exercise they receive, their ability to contact individuals outside the prison—had to be adapted for pregnant inmates, Fawcett said.

“The answers for a pregnant women are different than for other people, because you've got other people involved,” he said, namely, the child, the other parent and family members.

Because the court will continue to enforce the Seitz agreement, Fawcett said the inmates' lawyers will have a hand in the next steps as well. They will monitor the status of the pregnant inmates and the prison's compliance with policy. And Fawcett said he hopes the settlement will have reach outside Allegheny County.

“We hope that not just in Pennsylvania but nationwide there will be benchmarking,” he said. “We want people to know of this because we know other jurisdictions have the exact same problems.”

In Pennsylvania, the Department of Corrections conducts inspections at county prisons, but does not oversee prison policies, according to a spokeswoman. Still, the department keeps statistics on the prisons. For instance, counties are required to report any time they use restraints on pregnant women. From July 2016 to June 2017, there were 10 such incidents involving eight individuals from among 58 institutions that house women inmates.

When statewide policies or legislation don't provide overarching protections, Fawcett and Grote said litigation is often the necessary avenue to change policy.

Incarcerated people tend not to have much political clout, Grote noted, and “legislatures tend not to want to get into the minutiae of managing these institutions.”

In many cases, Fawcett said, the government will not enact change without some sort of litigation.

“Mass incarceration, and all the issues that come out of it, is something we lawyers need to be attuned to,” he said. “The more attorneys and lawyers that pay attention and get involved, the better.”

John Bacharach of the Allegheny County Law Department declined to comment on the case or the settlement agreement.