State-Commissioned Report Provides New Details of Dangerous Conditions for Women in California Prisons

Moss Group report documents escalation in gang activity, weapons, and sexual violence following an influx of men — even as it dismisses women’s concerns as “personal bias.”

A 2022 report commissioned by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) became public last week, providing insight into the considerations the agency has made in the implementation of SB 132, which allows inmates to be housed in prisons based on their claimed “gender identity.”

The report, conducted by the Moss Group, a DC-based consulting firm, provides recommendations to CDCR based on an analysis of the implementation as of November 2022. This appears to be part of an effort by CDCR, announced in 2021, to consult with “nationwide experts on this issue to help us navigate a complex issue.” But one thing is immediately apparent upon reading the report: women’s safety and needs were not considered at all.

SB 132 Background

In 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 132 (SB 132) into law. This legislation, enacted in January of 2021, allows incarcerated men to be housed in women’s correctional facilities based on self-declared “gender identity.” Men can transfer to women’s facilities even if they do not claim to have a female “gender identity;” they can also identify as “non-binary,” “gender-fluid,” or similar. Men who transfer into women’s prisons are not required to take hormones or have surgery; in fact, most of them retain their penises.

Hundreds of men have applied for transfers to women’s prisons, and dozens have already been transferred. These transfers have resulted in intimidation, sexual harassment, physical assaults, and sexual assaults committed by these men against incarcerated women. This policy has also prevented women whose religions require sex separation from practicing their faith.

Thousands of California women are impacted by this law, and WoLF filed suit on behalf of four of them, Janine Chandler, Krystal Gonzales, Tomiekia Johnson, and Nadia Romero, whose Constitutional rights have been violated under SB 132.

---

Chandler v. CDCR

Read more about our lawsuit here→

---

Report discusses preferential treatment the law prescribes for male prisoners in women’s facilities

WoLF’s lawsuit against CDCR on behalf of four women incarcerated in CCWF argues, among other things, that SB 132 violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to equal protection on the basis of sex and “gender identity.” The state has denied these allegations, claiming no such discrimination is happening. However, the Moss report provides many examples of the ways in which women, especially women who acknowledge the reality of their sex, are at a disadvantage in the system.

Men who transfer to CCWF under SB 132 are given special privileges, such as the ability to request a single-occupancy room, a specific roommate, or to have a roommate removed due to fear of their “safety.” Women, however, are not only granted no such liberties but are actively punished by the system if they speak out about their own safety concerns. 

The Moss Group states:

“If a cisgender [sic] woman raises personal safety concerns about having a transgender woman in the room, it was reported by staff and incarcerated individuals that she would be written up and removed from the room.” (pg. 18)

In their report, The Moss Group suggests ending this preferential housing treatment due to the obvious strife it causes, as it elicits resistance from “cisgender women” who object to the law’s overwhelmingly disparate impact on women. Since this unequal treatment of women is written into the law itself, the state must continue to enforce the unfair practice. However, the Moss Group takes the bold step of advising that the state actually amend the statute so that instead of privileging the housing preferences of men, it instead requires the exact opposite: equal treatment under the law of male and female prisoners. This is a stark admission by a nationally recognized expert consulting firm that SB 132 is facially unconstitutional: that it cannot be implemented as written without violating incarcerated women’s Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

Likewise, incarcerated individuals are given preferential access to certain personal items, such as clothing based on their claimed “gender identity.” The authors describe how this results in women claiming a gender identity for the sole purpose of gaining access to men’s clothes, which are considered preferable to many:

“Often, women prefer men’s items, such as t-shirts, which are reported to fit better. Some cisgender [sic] women appeared to be obtaining a TAC for the purpose of access to the male uniform t-shirts.” (pg. 13)

Once again, this demonstrates the preferential treatment an inmate can obtain by simply claiming a gender identity. Although the Moss report does accuse “cisgender women” of “lying” to gain access to higher-quality clothing, it never considers that any of the men transferred into CCWF under SB 132 may be likewise taking advantage of the new system to gain preferential housing, access to sexual partners, and a lower-security setting. (It is unclear what constitutes “lying” within the meaning of this law since, according to the state, the sole criteria for whether a prisoner is “transgender” is whether they self-identify as such).

Likewise, page 25 describes how “transgender women are reportedly not reprimanded for modifying clothing, while cisgender women are perceived to get written up for this routinely.”

Moss Group brushes off women’s safety concerns, prioritizes men’s feelings

It seems that women in state custody, if interviewed at all, were an afterthought to the entire report process. This is no clearer than in the (limited) discussions of safety and sexual assaults that have occurred as a direct result of the transfer of men to CCWF under SB 132. 

The Moss Group’s report focuses extensively on pronouns, dedicating paragraphs to ensuring that staff and female prisoners are properly “educated” on using preferred pronouns, including the creation of video propaganda on the subject that incarcerated women will be forced to watch. The authors suggest collecting and “entering pronouns for all incarcerated individuals to normalize sharing and using and using preferred pronouns,” rather than only doing so for individuals who identify as transgender. If adopted, this practice would be just one more way that this law violates the First Amendment’s prohibition on the establishment of a state religion by forcing this quasi-spiritual ideology of gender onto incarcerated women.

Concrete concerns, like women’s fears of being raped and impregnated by these men, are totally swept under the rug. This is clear by the number of times “sexual assault” is mentioned (3, and only in attachments to the main report) versus the number of times “pronouns” are mentioned: 22, nearly on every page.

At every turn, the authors of the report prioritize these men’s “gender identities” over the physical and mental safety of incarcerated women. The Moss group encourages corrections officers to expand their understanding of “safety” beyond actual risks of actual harm and to include concerns over “denial of identity,” stating:

“Often when corrections professionals and community stakeholders reference the need for safety, they focus first on different definitions. Corrections professionals are likely to first consider the threats to safety that are associated with criminogenic or anti-social behavior; community members are likely to first consider the threats associated with denial of identity. Processes must be developed to mitigate risks where these forms of safety intersect.” (pg. 17)

Throughout the report, any time women’s genuine safety fears are mentioned, the Moss group undermines those concerns by claiming they are based on “myths, anxiety or fear, and other times by misperceptions and misunderstanding.”

Despite being aware of instances in which women were sexually assaulted by men transferred under SB 132, the Moss group dismisses them as “rumors,” and argues that the women need to work harder to overcome their “bias related to personal beliefs” (pg. 24). It does not appear that any of the many women who have been directly assaulted, harassed, or threatened by the men transferred under SB 132 were interviewed for the report, nor were any of the organizations that represent incarcerated women, such as WoLF or Woman II Woman. 

Despite attempting to gaslight incarcerated women into thinking they just have “bias” and “anxiety” related to being housed with violent men, the Moss report does actually acknowledge some of the facts related to increased violence that has occurred in CCWF following the influx of male transfers. They state:

“For example, there were reported increases in possession and manufacturing of weapons, gang activity, PREA allegations, drug and alcohol use, and more sophisticated criminal behavior, such as a drone drop of drugs by a transgender woman who was transferred under SB 132.” (pg. 25)

They also admit that these reported increases are new following the implementation of SB 132, and even provide relevant stats proving the increase in weapons following SB 132 is not mere rumor. Yet, rather than considering that the men could be the cause of such increases in violence, they claim the victims must be lying:

“It is notable that concerns of this nature [PREA reports] were not as common with transgender women [sic] who transferred in prior to SB 132; however, many believe that there has been an increase in PREA allegations made in bad faith coinciding with SB 132.” (pg 19)

This is all stated despite their own admission — which corroborates evidence provided by WoLF’s expert declarant Callie Burt — that the “scope and scale” of the crimes by women incarcerated in CCWF are meaningfully different than that of the crimes of men.

Take Action! Support Our Efforts to Stop SB 132

The Moss Report demonstrates that, at every level, women in state custody have always been and continue to be an afterthought in the creation and implementation of SB 132. This law has resulted in pervasive, foreseeable, and well-documented physical and psychological damage to incarcerated women, and is blatantly unconstitutional. This report, despite being commissioned by CDCR itself, supposedly to assist with the safe implementation of the law, provides plenty of evidence that women’s concerns and the harm already caused are not being taken seriously.

WoLF is the only organization challenging SB 132 in court through Chandler v. CDCR, and we need your help. Consider making a tax-deductible donation to support this important case - we thank you in advance!

---

MORE NEWS ON CHANDLER V. CDCR