Click here for the CURE National website

CURE and Prison Reform | THE EARLY YEARS

The Call to Activism for Prison Reform

The year 1969 was a time of life-changing decisions for
Charles—most known as Charlie—and Pauline. It was
during that time that he quit the calling of priesthood after
criticizing the Catholic Church for its cautious position on the
civil rights and similar social issues in his native Alabama. It
was within the same time span that Pauline chose to quit
her sisterhood after spending 13 years in the order. Her
fight for the achievement of such causes as the American
Indian Movement and the Gay and Lesbian Mobilization was
at odds with the Church’s guarded stance on such issues
in her native Minnesota. Just like Charlie, she felt that the
anti-war movement and social changes were propelling her
faster than the Church would condone. “I couldn’t do so
many things in religious life that I thought I should be doing,”1
she said. “Also, I was very lonely.” She met Charlie in St.
Paul, Minnesota on a blind date arranged by Joe Selvage2,
and they got married. Then, as activists, they spent a year
traveling and living in a 1965 Volkswagen van before settling
in Texas. “We just felt very strongly that if we were going to
do something with our lives…it should be something that
was going to really be for the people at the bottom,” Pauline
explained.
At the time, during a visit to a friend detained in the Bexar
County jail “on a bogus charge of civil disobedience,”
 Charlie could not help but listen to the conversations of
other detainees describing their jail woes. And, when these
detainees went on hunger strike to protest their poor conditions
of detention, the Sullivans organized a sympathy strike
outside the jail. This led to Charlie’s detention for disorderly
conduct for a few days. “As I look back 30 years ago, what
stands out was the first clanging of that cell door and the
thought went through my mind that maybe I will never walk
out!!!”6 Charlie said in 2001 when reflecting on how he got
involved in jail and prison reform. During his short stay in jail,
Pauline and about a dozen other people kept a 24-hour vigil
outside the detention facility. “I shall never forget the first
morning in jail looking out the window and seeing Pauline
and that very small group singing ‘We shall overcome!’” On
his release, Charlie insisted on having a jury trial and used
the five hours of the court proceedings to make many statements
on prison reform, which led the judge at the end to
say jokingly that he was up to his neck in lessons about jail
reform.
A short time later, the Sullivans left San Antonio and continued
to travel and search for their niche. They got arrested
with 15,000 others for participating in the May Day, 1971,
anti-war demonstrations in Washington, DC. At the time,
both were members of the peace movement made of antiwar
activists. They were also part of a grassroots movement
seeking changes in the Catholic Church. “We were still
travelling and living in our VW van and even had a visit with
Dorothy Day at the Catholic Worker seeking her advice on
what we should do apart from civil disobedience,” Charlie
said. Dorothy was in charge of the Catholic Worker Hospitality
House in New York City. As an admirer of President Fidel
Castro for his achievements on behalf of Cubans in healthcare
and education, she encouraged Pauline and Charlie to
visit Cuba.
The actual answer to the Sullivans’ search for a worthwhile
cause other than protests came in September 1971, while
they were lobbying against the military draft and living in
their van on Capitol Hill in Washington. An uprising of people
incarcerated at Attica prison in New York occurred and
put the spotlight on prison conditions in the country. The
tragic climax of failed negotiations, especially the killing by
the state of not only 29 prisoners but also ten correctional
officers strongly influenced Pauline and Charlie to return to
San Antonio, Texas, and work long-range on jail and prison
reform.

Launching CURE

Before the late 1970s, almost all the Texas prisons were
located in the eastern region, which made it very difficult
for prisoners’ families from other parts of the state to stay in
touch with their incarcerated loved ones. “For some it could
mean a 500-miIe round trip, a trip that for many was not only
long but prohibitively expensive, since once they arrived in
the town nearest the prison, they’d have to take a taxi to
the facility,” Charlie explained. Some people had not seen
their imprisoned family members for over 10 years. Thus, in
San Antonio where they were living, the Sullivans initiated a
prison visit bus service.
They launched the service with just both of them and a few
volunteers from the peace movement to drive four leased
buses filled with friends and family of inmates on an arduous
500-mile round-trip. “Thus, CURE really began in San Antonio
on January 2, 1972, at 5 a.m.,” said Charlie, “when the
engines of four broken-down buses were started, and their
lights turned on.” The unanticipated great success of the
bus initiative motivated volunteers to replicate the service in
other major Texan cities such as Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth,
El Paso, and Houston. “The volunteers would send us the
names of people who wanted to go. As a result, we were
developing a kind of political constituency among people
throughout the state made up of the relatives of prisoners,”
he said. “We were organizing without quite knowing it, laying
the groundwork for the advocacy work we’d be doing later.”
The acronym CURE appropriately describes the focus on
rehabilitative measures the organization has built itself on.
Yet, the way the Sullivans came up with the name itself is
more illustrative of the goals of the group. According to
Pauline, when they decided to find a name of the organization
they had just created, it was easy for them to retain
the word “citizen” for the letter C because they wanted to
have grassroots organizing involving all citizens. Then they
thought of “united” as giving a sense of working together
and got the letter U. They believed that most Americans
supported the concept of rehabilitation for prisoners. “Surveys
have shown that 70 percent of the American people
still think that rehabilitation should be one of the purposes of
incarceration,” Pauline stated. That was how they chose R
for “rehabilitation.” Fascinatingly, they realized the acronym
started to spell “cure.” The last word had to begin with E
and be suitable for their plan to advocate for offenders and
prisoners. Thus, they used a dictionary and found the term
“errants” meaning people who make mistakes. Eventually,
the word “errant” became an accepted term in Texas for
prisoners, and it was used by some of the legislators.

Moving from Services to Advocacy

During the prison visit bus trips they organized, Pauline and
Charlie became aware of the “building tender” system—a
cruel guard system consisting in using inmates as guards
and heads of prison cell blocks. “Building tenders” had access
to weapons and could act with impunity, punishing
or even killing fellow inmates whom guards had deemed
troublemakers or whistleblowers. “When a warden wanted
to stop a prisoner from filing lawsuits, he would ask the BT
[“building tender”] over his cellblock to threaten, injure or
even kill the prisoner,” Charlie explained.
As budding policy entrepreneurs, the Sullivans decided to
fight for the ending of the “building tender” system. In February
1973, they delivered a news release to the media at
the Capitol in Austin, formally announcing the creation of
CURE as a prison reform organization. Then, Frances and
Fred Cruz who back then were legendary prison reformers
within the Texas prison world drafted the piece of legislation
addressing the concern at stake. Pauline and Charlie
wanted the bill to be introduced in the regular legislative
session that began in January and would end in June. So,
they tirelessly visited legislative offices at the Capitol to seek
sponsors for their bill. “We were discouraged by our negative
reception,” said Charlie, “until newly elected Rep. Joe
L. Hernandez, representing San Antonio’s poorest district
said he would introduce it.” He became CURE’s first public
official sponsor in the Texas legislature. Pauline and Charlie
drove many volunteers to testify about the “building tender”
system and challenge prison officials’ claim that “building
tenders” were prisoners selected by the administration to do
just janitorial work. They also encouraged family members
and friends of detainees to call their state legislators about
the urgency to put an end to that cruel retaliatory practice.
“We could tell them who to call, but we weren’t the ones
who would make the call; doing it themselves was part of
the empowerment,” Charlie remarked.
In April 1973, the legislators swiftly passed House Bill 1056
introduced by Rep. Hernandez, doing away with the “building
tender” system. The law stated that no inmate could
have administrative, disciplinary or supervisory power over
another inmate. However, it was 10 years later, only after
a federal court ordered a massive prison reform, requiring
that the prison authorities hire more correctional officers to
replace prisoners being used as “building tenders,” that the
Texas Department of Corrections (TDC) implemented the
law. U.S. District Judge William Wayne Justice quoted the
legislation secured by the Sullivans and their friends as a key
reason for his court decision. As a result, 2500 more correctional
officers were hired to take the place of the inmate
guards in Texan prisons.
Following the “building tender” prison reform win, Pauline
and Charlie realized that the organization might not be
able to survive by both providing services and doing policy
advocacy because of the risks and constraints associated
with each. Direct services helped find short-term solutions
to prison issues. However, they maintained status quo and
hardly effected any actual change of the prison system. Many
policymakers and politicians would enthusiastically support
or allocate funding for prison services. On the opposite, although
advocacy aimed to bring about lasting change in the
system through involvement in the policymaking process,
getting resources for it was difficult. When an organization
focused just on advocacy, it could be highly challenging for
it to get the support necessary to achieve its goals because,
as Charlie remarked, “Advocacy is not where the money is
because it can be controversial.” For instance, very few
lawmakers would support or sponsor organizations doing
prison reform advocacy. “The prison system liked us when
we only ran the bus service. When we advocated banning
the ‘building tender’ system, they saw us ‘as the enemy,’”
he explained. Subsequently, the choice between services
and advocacy work became obvious for CURE. “We are
100% in agreement then and now that CURE must be an
advocacy organization,” he added.
CURE’s option as an advocacy organization was reinforced
by its leaders’ deliberate adoption of a non-confrontational
approach when dealing with the prison management system.
This implied moving from a confrontational approach
to cooperative strategies, and no longer being involved in
demonstrations because anything that might occur during
protests sponsored by the group could irretrievably damage
its brand and reputation. “We realized that if we were ever
going to have any success in prison reform in Texas, we
would have to “adjust our marketing strategy,” Charlie said.
Therefore, CURE’s leaders began to be actively involved in
the policy-making arena, advocating at various levels of the
legislature while avoiding any activist actions that might annoy
power players. “We thus joined ‘the establishment’ and
became this nice ‘do-gooder’ couple who were properly
dressed and who wanted to bring about prison reform,”
Charlie said. “We had become members of the jury to
hang the jury!” However, the non-confrontational approach
was not unanimously well accepted among other CURE’s
members. “They want us to confront more than we think
is good,” said Pauline. “They think you can put people
against the wall and shout at them to change.” Through their
selfless leadership, the Sullivans showed CURE membership
that a nonviolent approach was a relevant alternative
way of bringing about change in the prison system. By their
work in the field of policymaking, they showed that lobbying,
although hardly used by activists, was a strategy more suitable
than demonstrations for “speaking truth to power.”
In July 1974, the Sullivans moved from San Antonio to
Austin—the state capital. “We also felt that if we were to
move more in the direction of advocacy, we should relocate
to Austin, the state capital, and be in close touch with the
Texas legislators,” Charlie said. Consequently, during the
next 12 years, they were actively involved in policymaking at
the Capitol, hardly having time for full time jobs for a living.

Impact of Spirituality on the Activist Couple

Life in Austin was not easy for the Sullivans. They used to
do part-time jobs and lived on $400 a month. “Besides
donations for the work, I did substitute teaching, and Charlie
drove a cab. That was a disaster, because he kept getting
lost,” Pauline said, explaining how they supported themselves
during their early years of prison reform advocacy.
They got their clothes from second-hand stores or from
friends and acquaintances. For instance, Rep. Hernandez,
for instance, used to donate his suits to Charlie. “Whatever
Joe wears this legislative session,” Charlie candidly said, “I
will be wearing the next.” “But we’re not lacking for anything
that’s important to us,” Pauline said. “The expenses we’ve
cut out are things like cars, new clothes—we get our clothes
second hand—and life insurance,” she added.
In Austin, they walked or took buses to wherever they went.
Then one day Nick Kralj, a restaurant owner, got tired of
seeing them often waiting for buses on street corners and
offered them a 10-year-old Volkswagen car, telling them that
even God did not like them waiting for buses every time.34
Many people in Texas were bewildered at seeing the Sullivans
show so much happiness and passion in willful poverty
despite their excellent level of connection and education.
Charlie had a Master of Arts degree and did advanced
studies in theology, whereas Pauline had a Bachelor of Arts
degree and did graduate work in special education.
Most lobbyists at the Capitol in Austin represented big interests.
Not only were they very well remunerated, but also
they spent a lot of money on lawmakers to influence the
way legislation was made in their areas of intervention. In
stark contrast, Pauline and Charlie, the only “lobbyists” or
advocates for prison reform at the Capitol, had no one to
pay them for their work, and were not even seeking any
remuneration. They could not afford to pay for meals for any
legislators or provide donations to political campaign coffers
as lobbyists would do. Instead, sometimes their own meal
tabs were picked up by legislators. “They hosted no cocktail
parties and had no donations to dispense; they offered only
photocopied fact sheets and earnest testimony,” Robert
Perkinson wrote in his (2010) book, “Texas Tough: The Rise
of America’s Prison Empire.” In opposition to the mainstream
lobbyists at the Capitol, the Sullivans represented
not the ‘Super Americans,’ referring to the Texas’s booming
millionaire class in the 1970s, “but the most wretched
Americans”. They operated in an inhospitable environment
because prison reform was still such an unpopular and hot button
policy topic few lawmakers dared to raise. “One of
the group’s problems is that the population for which they
lobby (prisoners) does not elicit much sympathy,” S. D. Williams
stated in his 1991’s article titled “CURE for America’s
Prisons” in the journal, Corrections Compendium. “Outsiders
frequently do not see the wisdom of giving resources to
those who must be in prison,” he explained. The Sullivans
campaigned in the lawmaking arena with the hope that there
were people in a position of leadership who would be sensitive
to their policy proposals for the welfare of detainees.
Retired State Senator Babe Schwartz expressed his admiration
for the Sullivans’ leadership on educating policymakers
in these terms:
Until Charlie and Pauline came along, I had never
seen anyone advocate on behalf of a prisoner […].
I didn’t know anyone in prison. But the Sullivans
started to tell me about prisoners and their families
and the depredations [. . . ]. They just opened up a
whole new world.
Only from a religious perspective is it possible to fathom
the self-sacrifice of this couple passionately committed to
activism for prisoner rights. “We wouldn’t be in this work if
it didn’t have a spiritual basis,” Pauline said. “Although I
left religious life and married, what I’m doing now is a continuation
of that life of service,” she added. The underlying
principle for their modest lifestyle could be traced back to
their resolve to keep the vows of poverty they had taken
when they respectively joined priesthood and sisterhood a
long time ago. “It’s certainly a choice, the simple life style,
and we probably made it because of our background in
religious life,” she further explained. Charlie said that when
he lacked time to pray– which did happen time and again
because their work was so overwhelming — to sustain himself
spiritually, he often relied on the prayer by Michel Quoist
called “Lord. Why Did You Tell Me to Love?” The anecdote
behind this prayer was that once there was a person
who wanted to do God’s will and help others, but he was
overwhelmed to find people coming at him from every side,
through the doors and through the windows. So, God assured
him not to worry because while people were pouring
in, He slipped in with them. More than faith, mutual support
and communion provided the fuel for Charlie and Pauline to
carry on their “mission” on behalf of prisoners. “I couldn’t go
on here if it weren’t for Pauline,” said Charlie. “You have to
have someone who’s going through it with you.”
It seems ironic that the Catholic Church provided the biggest
support to Charlie and Pauline’s work for decades although
both had left their orders. It was as if the Church had
a deeper understanding of the bold choice the couple made
and decided to accompany them in their ordained mission to
fight for prisoners. In Austin, the Texas Catholic Conference
helped CURE in various ways. Bishop John McCarthy, who
was the executive director of the Conference in the 1970s
and his successor, Brother Richard Daly, were supportive
not only with funding, but also with encouragement and
advice for CURE’s activities. Later, in D.C., CURE received
a lot of help from the Archdiocese through the chaplain at
the D.C. jail, Father Mike Bryant. Besides, Pauline’s former
faith community, the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet in
Minnesota, were very supportive of her.

Advocating from Inside the Policymaking Arena

In Austin, Pauline and Charlie would spend most of their
time roaming the halls of the Capitol. They would accost
legislators, testify before committees and panels, or prod
the press to get their policy points across. They were often
pleading for more humane treatment for detainees, more
work-release and community–based corrections programs,
and fewer new expensive prisons, yet often without much
success, because most legislators thought the couple’s reform
demands were naive. “They are trying to attack a fleet
of tanks with a toothpick,” Houston State Rep. Mickey
Leland said, reflecting on Charlie and Pauline’s tenacity in
adversity in the lawmaking arena. “But if every member of
the legislature sat down and listened to them, at least in their
hearts they’d vote with them,” he acknowledged.
In 1974, Charlie was appointed to a citizens advisory committee
of a legislative task force studying prison reform that
he helped launch earlier, and was unexpectedly elected
chairman. He proceeded to hold hearings across Texas
and visit prison units. The committee’s report harshly criticized
the Texas Department of Corrections (TDC)’s management
of the prison system, making Charlie a persona non grata
with the leaders of the corrections system, especially
the director of TDC, William J. “Jim” Estelle. The latter
rejected the committee’s claim that the Texas prison system
needed reform. He also rejected CURE’s request to set up
chapters on each prison unit. Even so, he was invited to
the organization’s first state convention in Huntsville, Texas,
in September 1975. He walked out of this meeting without
delivering the speech he had brought after being publicly
questioned by convention participants about an issue of
inmate repression in a prison he himself admitted as a foul
play. Later, he sent the assembly an apology indicating
that he overreacted. According to Charlie, Estelle’s attitude
reflected a lack of experience when dealing on an “equal
plane” with organized detractors. In the image of Estelle,
CURE faced many opponents among TDC officials and lawmakers
in Austin or elsewhere. Yet, the organization managed
to remain active and maintained a steady stream of
criticism toward the state corrections system.
Still in 1975, CURE started to focus on jail and probation
issues. It helped establish the Texas Commission on Jail
Standards and the Texas Adult Probation Commission. It
influenced the establishment of community corrections by
twice defeating proposals to construct more prisons. The
organization helped bring about changes on the TDC Parole
Board. For instance, the organization was successful
in having minorities appointed on the Board, whose major
problem then was its consistent opposition to granting paroles.
In 1978, CURE opened an office near the Capitol in
Austin. In the same year, it published “The Maze”, a well-publicized
booklet that detailed the cumbersome process
that expectant parolees had to go through and revealed
how the Governor could become a big obstacle to the
parole process. The booklet also provided a guideline for
families of prisoners writing their own letters and visiting the
Parole Board themselves instead of hiring an attorney. The
Parole Board eventually adopted “The Maze” as their official
information guide.
Between 1978 and 1981, CURE helped facilitate the litigation
of Ruiz v. Estelle. This was the longest and most comprehensive
prison reform lawsuit in the U.S. history. The
organization’s leaders solicited testimony across the state
and led the grassroots mobilization to stop efforts of TDC’s
leaders and lawmakers to hamper the lawsuit process.
Litigation started in 1972 when inmate David Ruiz sued
the director of TDC, William J. Estelle over dangerous and
degrading living and working conditions. In his class-action
suit, Ruiz claimed that the TDC’s management of prisons
constituted “cruel and unusual punishment”, which is prohibited
by the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit was organized around five issues: prisoners’
physical safety, living and working conditions, medical care,
punishments, and access to the courts. After eight years
of pre-trial activity, the case of Ruiz v. Estelle finally went to
trial. The trial itself was lengthy—129 days—during which
the state contested every claim made by the plaintiffs. In
the end, the U.S. District Court in Tyler, Texas ruled in the
plaintiffs’ favor citing numerous instances of mistreatment,
institutionalized neglect and inadequate resources and facilities.
As a consequence, in 1981, Federal District Judge William
Wayne Justice ordered major sweeping changes in the
state’s prison system. He found that Texas prison conditions
were unconstitutional.
CURE’s fortune changed dramatically when the state legislature
eventually decided to address massive prison reforms
in 1983. The thrust behind this swift move was the lack of
financial resources at the state level. As a matter of fact,
forced by a recession and falling oil prices, to find an inexpensive
means of handling the rising prison crowding, State
budget writers-initiated talks with prison reformers led by
CURE leaders. The same issue of declining state surpluses
pushed conservative legislators, who had repeatedly rejected
prison reform, to reconsider their support of expensive
additional maximum-security prisons for the rising prison
crowding and embrace the alternative concepts CURE had
been defending without much success for years such as
halfway houses, restitution centers and increased paroles.
At that time, Texas had 94% of its inmates in maximum security
while the national average was 42%. “Locking up
criminals in maximum-security facilities is not a luxury we
can afford anymore,” warned Dallas Republican Ray Keller.
“The taxpayers are getting nothing out of it except a bunch
of professional inmates,” he explained. There were just nine
prisoners on work release out of 37,000. The credibility
of the prison system was at its lowest in 35 years. Thus,
lawmakers who used to despise CURE and especially its
charismatic leader Charlie for his “naïve” reform proposals,
started to plead for help in solving the problem. As a result,
House Speaker Gib Lewis put forward a package of almost
two dozen bills.
Ultimately, what emerged was sixteen bills, two resolutions,
and one constitutional amendment, sponsored by eight
senators and 15 house representatives. “The most productive
legislative session in criminal justice reform in Texas
history,” Charlie proudly observed. Of the 20 measures
passed at the 1983 session, the bill creating restitution
centers was especially popular with the public because the
Governor allocated money for immediate implementation.
Under this bill, property offenders scheduled to go to TDC
prisons would be confined at a facility in the community for
up to one year, and they would have to work. After living
expenses were deducted, the rest of their paychecks would
be used for restitution to the victims of the crime.62 The
changes got some high-profile push from a few people, including:
Federal Judge W. W. Justice—the famous maverick
judge who boldly ordered an unprecedented massive prison
reform in Texas in the early 1980s; Texas legislators such as
Rep. Ray Keller (R. Duncanville), Sen. Craig Washington (D.
Houston), and Sen. Ray Farabee (D. Wichita Falls); prison
board members like Harry Whittington, a Republican. CURE
leaders had thought Democrats would be their best support
for prison reform at the Capitol, and were surprised to be
wrong. “[. . . ] It was the Republicans more than the Democrats
who finally got some of the reforms through,” Charlie
remarked.
Almost all the bills put forward by the House Speaker were
passed with little debate. In addition, as experienced policy
entrepreneurs, CURE leaders seized upon that unexpected
window of opportunity to push through other policy proposals
and bills that had been blocked at the level of various
subcommittees for years. “When we realized this was happening,
we and our key legislative sponsors furiously tried
to introduce every feasible prison reform bill in our files,”
Charlie stated. “For the first time, and perhaps only time, the
wagon was going in our direction. Let’s load it up! In the end,
we were successful in ‘piggybacking’ a third of the twenty
measures on the community corrections’ legislation,” he
further explained.
CURE got additional push from other Republican legislators,
especially Ed Emmett, who sponsored and introduced
CURE’s bill to make it possible for prisoners to have contact
visits instead of having to speak to their family members
through a glass screen. CURE organized families “to hit the
right political note” during legislative hearings on Emmet’s
bill, which was eventually enacted. The Sullivans had already
left for D.C. when contact visits became reality in the prisons.
When Charlie returned to one of the prison units a few
years later, and saw the outside contact visiting settings, he
was moved to tears. In addition to helping to get the Texas
legislature to support contact visits, CURE also played a key
part in the passage of another pro-family measure, a five day
furlough program for prisoners.
The massive prison reform passage resulted in the departure
of TDC director Estelle, who during the 1983 state legislature
had been requesting a lot of taxpayers’ monies for the construction
of more maximum-security prisons. After Estelle
had left office, TDC switched to another leadership style. In
fact, at the behest of CURE leaders, who insisted that radical
reforms were needed to “cut out the entire cancer that’s
plaguing TDC,” the corrections board appointed Raymond
Procunier, an outsider, to serve as the new permanent director.
Procunier, also known as “the Pro,” was an experienced
prison leader who had previously worked in California. On
taking office, he decided to dismantle the obsolete control
model in the prison system. This move resulted in officers
and nearly half the system’s wardens losing their jobs while,
through a series of directives, he enforced what he called
a “more sophisticated organizational approach.” Under
Procunier’s leadership, TDC and the state’s attorney general
entered into serious settlement negotiations. Pressed by
successive defeats in the courts, the state signed consent
decrees regarding health care and the use of force in
prisons. The Republican board chair, Robert Gunn, called the
consent decrees a turning point in TDC’s history. “The war
is over. The side of reform has won,” he said. “The Sullivans
viewed the settlement as a major achievement of CURE.
“We have moved closer to the possibility of a humane prison
system with opportunities for rehabilitation,” Charlie wrote
in the Texas Observer.
In 1984, CURE’s relationship with TDC rose to an unprecedented
level when Procunier spoke at the organization’s
state convention. “Our dreams have finally become a
reality,” said Charlie. “I don’t think there’s much more we
can do here [in Texas].” In 1985, that is 13 years after the
creation of CURE, the Sullivans were ready to move onto a
bigger and more effective lobbying stage to replicate what
they achieved in Texas and expand the leverage power of
CURE in advocacy for prison reform. The move had actually
been contemplated for four or five years earlier. “We need
a national organization,” Charlie concluded. “We need a
national agenda.”

CURE TAKES THE NATIONAL STAGE

Still riding high on the waves of the unexpected massive
prison reform win achieved by CURE under their leadership,
Pauline and Charlie held their most successful fundraiser
ever and decided it was time to take their movement national.
Then they packed their meager belongings, rented
a U-Haul truck, and drove to Washington, D.C. in August
1985. “Their plan was to mobilize a coast-to-coast network
of ex-prisoners and their families and to replicate in Congress
what they had already accomplished in one of the most conservative states in the union,”75 Robert Perkinson
wrote in his book, Texas Tough. In fact, the move of CURE’s
headquarters to the national capital was motivated by,
first, the need to expand the group’s grassroots organizing
by establishing state chapters; second, the need to work
with policymakers in Congress to affect prison reforms at
the federal level; and third, the need to address the lack
of national prison organizations that specifically focused on
prisoners and their families. Their arrival in the federal capital
did not much affect their austere lifestyle. For several years,
they lived and worked out of a one-bedroom apartment in
a drug-ridden neighborhood in Northeast Washington.76
CURE’s office, then located at the top of a narrow flight of
iron stairs in an old Catholic Church a few blocks from the
Capitol, used to be a priest’s bedroom.

Establishing and Developing Chapters

From their public policy advocacy experience in Texas,
Pauline and Charlie were aware that grassroots organizing
would play a key part in the achievement of one of CURE’s
main objectives, that is, bringing about prison reform both
nationally and locally by establishing state chapters that
would empower their members. They were also confident
that developing chapters around the country could provide
CURE the networking leverage CURE needed to influence
policymaking for prison issues at Congress. However, at
first, it was difficult for them to reach out to groups in other
parts of the country because of lack of resources, both human
and financial. Fortunately, the news of CURE’s impact
on an unprecedented prison reform in Texas preceded their
arrival in D.C. Thus, by the end of 1985, various groups
started writing the Sullivans for advice and guidance on
starting advocacy groups for prison reform in other cities
and states. Pauline and Charlie became overwhelmed with
invitations to help launch state chapters and to speak to
groups and associations of family members and friends of
prisoners in many cities. After helping establish more than
a dozen chapters, CURE held its first national convention
in June 1987 in D.C. The national gathering provided the
biggest opportunity to that point for CURE to showcase of
its nationwide presence. Delegations and members from
more than 10 states attended the event. Since then, the organization
has consistently organized a national convention
every two years. A lot of the rationale behind these national
and international gatherings goes back to Wally Ellinger who
was a longtime leader of Texas-CURE. According to Charlie,
Wally taught CURE members many things about organizing.
One of the most important was to have a face- to-face
meeting with all the persons you would be working with on
prison reform. Once you have had this meeting, you can
follow up with phone calls and other communications. “But,
the physical meeting is essential,” said Charlie, “and the
work with the person before and after the visit is like “night
and day” in effective organizing.
In 1991, special issue chapters were organized, a critical
step as these chapters were national in membership and
focused on more specific issues such as treatment for sex
offenders and organizing families with loved ones on death
row. They advocated in Congress about situations affecting
special categories of prisoners and their issues nationwide
that could not be effectively addressed at the state level.
Since the start, over a dozen CURE special issue chapters
have been created. Some were terminated due to lack of
resources or became inactive after dealing with the issues
for which for they were established or due to lack of resources.
Among them were the following ones: C.U.R.E.-
E.N.O.U.G.H. (Everyone Needs Opportunity, Understanding,
Guidance, and Hope), 1992-1994; Federal Prison chapter,
1991-1994; C.U.R.E.-I.A. (Incarcerated Aliens), 1994; Life-
Long C.U.R.E., “Lifers” in prison, 1992-1994; C.U.R.E. for
Veterans, 1991-1994. The following are the existing issue
chapters:
• FedCURE, which works to establish a hybrid system
of federal parole and increased good time allowances;
and provide re-entry opportunities for
federal offenders”
• FIND-CURE (Furnishing Imprisoned Non-citizens
with Direction), which provides information, resources,
and tools for incarcerated and detained
non-citizens working to help other non-citizens who
are involved in the criminal justice system;
• NDRAN (National Death Row Assistance Network),
which works to provide support to prisoners on
death row and their loved ones;
• CURE-SORT (Sex Offenders Restored through
Treatment, which works to promote restoration of
people who have sexually offended by establishing
alternatives to incarceration; and to foster a sense
of community, responsibility, and concern between
offenders nationwide through correspondence with
people incarcerated for sex offenses;
• CURE-Women Incarcerated, which provides a network
of resources and support for incarcerated
women, their families, and loved ones; and
• CURE for Vets, working to assist war veterans involved
with the criminal justice system.
In their tours to help launch chapters around the country,
the Sullivans struggled with a particular concern leaders of
new chapters raised: the latter often believed they needed
the leverage of high-profile politicians or experts to put their
organizations on the map. “We are always looking for a
Messiah! Someone to save us!” Charlie remarked. “This is
certainly true when we begin a chapter and also valid when
we get it off the ground.” Thus, he was surprised to findsuccessful
chapters. He heard too many times people complain
that “If we could just get a high-profile person involved, we
could really do something!” Even though some chapters developed
a dynamic prison reform movement in their states,
they still believed they needed more expertise. “There is
a tendency to deliver it over to a ‘biggie’ when WE ARE
THE EXPERTS!!!” Charlie exclaimed. Whenever he was
invited to launch a chapter, he emphasized the crucial need
of confidence and team work in which everyone should be
valued. “Without a team approach, you will not make it in
this work,” he observed. “And by ‘team’, I mean not only
free-world people but also prisoners including those on
death row.” To help and strengthen the leadership of chapters,
CURE launched a program called Chapter Leadership
Development Training in 2003. Thanks to this program and
through periodic conferences and workshops, the organization
has trained hundreds of members planning to build a
chapter or to make an established chapter more effective.
Former CURE Board Chairperson Kay Perry of Michigan
CURE has coordinated the Chapter Leadership Development
Training for several years now.
CURE also developed empowerment initiatives to reinforce
its policy campaigns in D.C. and other surrounding cities.
Good examples are the voter registration campaigns CURE
initiated in 2002 in the Baltimore City jail and at the Washington,
D.C. jail. The primary motive of these campaigns
was to show that America’s jail population represented a
legitimate political constituency since most jail inmates were
eligible to vote. According to Charlie, voting is a rehabilitative
act because it empowers inmates to contribute to democracy
by exercising their civic rights.82 After meeting with the
Director of the Maryland State Administrative Board of Election
Laws and the Attorney General’s Office, CURE leaders
got the approval of the Secretary of Corrections to begin the
registration of prisoners in the Baltimore City jail. For instance,
Charlie became an official Voter Registration Volunteer (VRV)
for the state of Maryland after a special training. As a VRV,
he could train jail staff and inmates as VRVs so that they in
turn could register the inmates in their respective cell blocks.
Through this initiative, hundreds of inmates were registered
to vote in 2004. In the D.C. jail, Charlie registered 75 prisoners
to vote, that is, approximately 10% of those eligible to
do so. Still at the local level, CURE spearheaded various
campaigns to improve the detention conditions and communication
between families and their incarcerated loved
ones. For example, CURE persuaded the D.C. Department
of Corrections to get more buses to take families to Lorton—
the District’s prison for convicted prisoners across the
river in Virginia. The organization also worked hard against
the death penalty initiative that was on the ballot in D.C. in
1992. Pauline recruited volunteers in every precinct of the
district and others who delivered sample sermons to local
pastors and ministers. As a result, the death penalty initiative
was voted down by two to one.
Beyond programs developed at the local and state levels,
CURE chapters helped bring about reforms that have impact
either at the state or national level. For example, recently,
under the leadership of Dianne Tramutola-Lawson,
Colorado CURE facilitated a program where persons once
incarcerated with life sentences mentored other formerly
life term persons lifers to make their transition back into the
community. Under the direction of Deborah Forbes, North
Carolina CURE was able to have the state prison system
in North Carolina become the first prison system to comply
with the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). This ranges
from wheelchairs for prisoners who need them to treatment
for those who have mental problems. Michigan CURE advocated
for the use of parole guidelines that are now used
routinely in the state and elsewhere. The Michigan chapter
also worked with the American Friends Service Committee
to organize their members to participate in the Administrative
Rules process to influence how rules were written for the
Department of Corrections. That campaign led the Michigan
state government to make the department processes more
transparent and accountable. For years, the chapter also
worked on the prison phone issue in the state and got a
significant reduction of prison phone rates.
However, according to former CURE Chairperson Perry,
who serves as the Director of Michigan CURE, it is difficult,
if not impossible, for any CURE chapters to take full credit
for policy initiatives in their own states, let alone at the federal
level. Actually, CURE has traditionally encouraged collaboration
among chapters about any important reform at
stake in a state. Furthermore, CURE’s policy proposals and
campaigns have often got the support of other groups not
affiliated to the organization. “We [CURE] are just one voice
among many that are calling for more logical and humane
policies,” Perry said. “It is simply impossible to know if
something we said or wrote had a significant impact on the
final outcome.” Discussing the contributions of CURE and
its chapters to policy reform, she stated,
“What we [CURE] can take credit for is giving hope
to the thousands of people who are incarcerated and
their loved ones. Our newsletters and our responses
to their letters help them to know that someone out
here understands what is happening. They know that
things should and can be better. And, we give them
some idea of what they might do to help make things
better. 

A Determined Quest for Sponsorship for Prison Reform in Congress

Although their Texas experience with state legislators prepared
the Sullivans for policy entrepreneurship at the federal
level, once in D.C., they came to see that the legislative
system in Congress was much more complex with its over
500 legislators. “In Austin we knew everybody in the state
capitol building. It was almost like a community,” Pauline
said, “But here, I’d go up to Congress when we first arrived,
and it seemed very lonesome. So, the first two years
were hard,” At the start, they were surprised at finding that
no one besides them was doing direct advocacy on prison
reform in Congress. It was also very hard for them to find
any member of Congress who showed any interest in prison
issues, a touchy topic very few lawmakers dared then to
raise or support.
One day, tired and despondent, Charlie managed to catch
the attention of Congressman John Conyers, Jr., of Detroit,
then Chairman of the Criminal Justice Subcommittee, after a
hearing. He managed to give the Congressman, right in the
hallway, a 30-second elevator speech about CURE’s work.
Rep. Conyers was so impressed that he asked Charlie to
come to his office to provide him further information about
CURE. That single encounter rewarded the Sullivans’ great
patience and determination and provided CURE its first key
support in Congress. “As Rep. Joe Hernandez did in Texas
CURE in 1973, Congressman Conyers did for National
CURE in 1987. He put us ‘on the map’,” said Charlie. “He’s
the legislator who has helped us the most in Washington,”
he added. In June 1987, Rep. Conyers was the keynote
speaker at CURE’s first national convention, during which he
became the first person the organization ever honored with
an award at any of its conventions.
CURE’s major support in Congress came from the Congressional
Black Caucus. The organization worked with many
Congressmen from this caucus including Robert Scott of
Virginia, Danny Davis and Bobby Rush, both from Illinois. Although
Congressman Conyers has been CURE’s champion
on Capitol Hill, Congressman Bobby Scott is a very close
second. Congressman Rush was behind the emphasis on
released prisoners obtaining Medicaid in the House and also
was CURE’s Congressional leader on the prison phone issue.
Congressman Danny Davis has been most supportive
concerning reentry issues. CURE also collaborated with
other members of Congress91 over its proposals for alternatives
to incarceration. For instance, two Republicans,
Congressman Frank Wolf and Sen. James Inhofe have been
most supportive of CURE.
Contributions to Prison Reform
at the Federal Level
From 1989 to 2013, CURE has spearheaded or contributed
to a substantial number of legislation on prison reform
passed in Congress, through testimonies, policy proposals,
lobbying at both state and federal levels, and grassroots organizing.
Federal legislations and programs the organization
has contributed to include the following:
• The WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) program
of 1989. CURE spearheaded a campaign to
make it possible for pregnant prisoners to receive
supplemental foods through WIC. “Pauline had to
practically move mountains to get Congress to provide
WIC coverage of pregnant prisoners,” said
Charlie. Initially, staff members at the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, which oversees WIC, were upset
with Pauline for advocating for pregnant prisoners
to be eligible for WIC and nicknamed her ‘the
prison baby lady.’ “But finally I got them to say that
at least they wouldn’t fight me on the issue,” she
stated. “Luckily there was a woman in the WIC office
who agreed with me, and so did a Republican
who was on the staff of the Congressional Committee
on Agriculture.”
• The Family Unity Demonstration Project Act
of 1993. The law was to have non-violent female
prisoners serve their sentences with their small children.
Pauline spearheaded CURE’s efforts to have
the law passed. Congresswoman Maxine Waters
from Los Angeles, then Head of the Congressional
Black Caucus, helped CURE with the Project bill.
Yet, although the bill was enacted, not one dollar
of the 20 million authorized has ever been appropriated.
• In 1996, CURE contributed to efforts to have an
Office of Correctional Job Training and Placement
established within the U.S. Department of Justice.
Likewise, the organization worked with other
groups toward the creation of Specter Grants
which provided for prisoner education a smaller replacement
for Pell Grants.
• The Second Chance Act of 2007, signed into law
by President Bush on April 9, 2008, was designed
to ensure the safe and successful return of prisoners
to the community. CURE was part of a coalition
which successfully campaigned for the passage of
this legislation.
• Special issue chapter FedCURE was one of the
main organizations that pushed for the bill called
the Federal Prison Work Incentive Act also
known as the Good Time Bill introduced on March
12, 2009. This legislation would allow for deductions
in prison terms (other than life terms) to be
granted to prisoners whose record demonstrates
that they have observed all prison regulations, have
not been punished, or have participated in industrial
employment, meritorious service, or outstanding
duties in institutional operations. Despite rumors
that circulated for a while throughout the U.S. Bureau
of Prisons that the bill was about to be signed
by President Barack Obama, it never emerged from
the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• The most recent reform win for CURE occurred on
August 9, 2013 when the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) announced measures to regulate
predatory prison phone rates by significantly
reducing the cost of inmate phone calls four times
less, from one-dollar to twenty-five cents a minute.
Specifically, FCC ruling establishes per-minute rate
caps of 21¢ for debit interstate calls and 25¢ for
collect interstate calls from all detention facilities.
The order requires phone companies to cost-justify
any rates that exceed 12¢ for debit and 14¢ for
collect calls. It also prohibits charging persons with
hearing disabilities higher rates. According to Charlielie, the FCC’s decision to dramatically reduce the
cost of inmate telephone calls was a great victory
for CURE and all the groups which collaborated
with CURE on the issue through a 12-year national
grassroots campaign.

Models of Winning Campaigns

In January 2000, CURE launched a nationwide campaign
to lower phone call cost for inmates called “Equitable Telephone
Charges” campaign (or ETC campaign). Former
CURE Board Chairperson, Kay Perry coordinated the campaign.
The objective was to pressure prison administrators
and phone companies to reduce commissions, introduce
debit calling, and lower per-minute rates. The campaign also
aimed to get the FCC to stop the practice that required families
to pay 66 percent more for phone calls from prisoners
than what non-prisoners paid. When CURE began working
on this issue, calls in all but one state had to be collected—
only in Nebraska could incarcerated persons make debit
calls using their own funds. Alleging that people failed to
pay for those collect charges, the phone companies argued
that they needed to inflate the already high rates to cover
the bad debt. They entered into exclusive contracts with the
prison and jail administrators to provide telephone services.
Interstate prison calls were dominated and controlled by
two private equity firms, Global Tel Link Corp. and Securus
Technologies Inc.94 Not only were the calls expensive, but
there was also a wide disparity between prison rates. It was
not unusual for people to pay as much as $18 for a call of
only fifteen minutes. In Texas, for instance, it cost $6.45 for
a 15-minute interstate call of the same time length whereas
in Idaho it was $16.55. Prisoners made collect calls or set
up prepaid accounts either funded by relatives or by their
earnings from prison jobs that paid only cents per hour.95As
an incentive to the administrators, phone companies offered
substantial commissions to the prisons and jails. Commissions
were routinely 40-50% of the cost of the call per hour
and sometimes as much as 60%. People who did not pay
their bills or whose phone companies did not have billing
agreements with the prison phone provider were prohibited
from receiving calls.
The ETC campaign started with the creation of a website
and wide grassroots organizing through which over 37,000
packets were mailed to participants in all 50 states and the
District of Columbia. The American Friends Service Committee’s
Criminal Justice Program in Michigan assisted with
CURE’s efforts. The packets contained materials that were in
turn meant to be sent to state legislators, governors, prison
system leaders, and telephone company leaders. From the
campaign headquarters in Michigan, materials went to state
legislators. In most states, campaign materials were even
personally delivered to the office of each legislator. Attorneys
were challenging the high phone rates in several states.
While those lawsuits were generally dismissed in favor of
the phone companies, they made awareness of the problem
grow and spread. In 2003, a court finally responded to a
lawsuit challenging the high rate of interstate calls by sending
the case to the FCC for a resolution. CURE was one of
the plaintiffs in that litigation.
Consequently, CURE’s pro bono attorneys pressed the FCC
to take action. CURE Chapter leaders from throughout the
country met with FCC staff to educate them on the importance
of affordable phone rates. Bills to solve the issue were
introduced in Congress, but never saw action, and then the
case remained before the FCC for nearly ten years with no
movement. A coalition of groups under the banner “Campaign
for Prison Phone Justice” formed in 2012 to advocate
for FCC action. The coalition, led by the Center for Media
Justice, Prison Legal News, and Working Narratives, began
urging individuals to share their stories on an Internet website.
It also worked with groups and individuals who were
not generally associated with advocacy on behalf of prisoners.
The Right on Crime Campaign, for instance, was an
organization of conservative national politicians; their voices
were helpful in convincing the FCC that elemental fairness
was at issue and something should be done. The coalition
encouraged people to contact the FCC to tell their stories
and urge industry regulation. And, they met with the Chair
of the FCC to argue that a 10-year wait for action was too
long. Testifying as to the impact of the various contributions
to the ultimate success of the ETC campaign, the campaign
coordinator Perry said, “There is no doubt in my mind that
the many other groups that have recently joined that effort
deserve considerable credit. FCC Commissioner Mignon
Clyburn was also a critical ally.” According to Perry, four
lessons can be drawn from the campaign:
1. One of the most important characteristics of effective
advocacy is tenacity. This has been a very long
campaign;
2. Coalitions are very helpful. Different groups bring
other resources to the effort. Because the focus of
each group may be just a bit different, the mix can
be energizing;
3. There is power in numbers. Not only do policymakers
pay more attention, but people who are
harmed by predatory systems are much more likely
to speak up when they know that many others are
doing so. Consequently, the fear of retaliation diminishes;
and,
4. Internet-based advocacy and social media can significantly
contribute to campaigns. It is much easier
and a lot less expensive to engage many more
people. The tools available make it simpler for individuals
to participate and to tell their story in their
own words.
Along with the ETC campaign, in September 2000, CURE
launched the national ecumenical For Whom the Bells Toll
campaign. The goal of the campaign was to engage all
religious congregations, churches, synagogues, abbeys,
monasteries, mosques, and temples throughout the country
to toll their bells for two minutes at 6:00 p.m. on the day of
any execution in the United States. Recognizing that many
places of worship might not have bells, the organization encouraged
them to place a black drape over the outside door
of the building and/or tie black ribbons around the trees and
utility poles surrounding the church. Otherwise, it asked
them to display a very striking black & white, indoor-outdoor
banner, about 4 feet by 6 feet designed for the campaign.
Dorothy Briggs, a Dominican nun, coordinated the movement.
In 1978, she began working in the prison system, and
this ultimately let her to death penalty ministry and the For
Whom the Bells Toll campaign. She was the founder of Massachusetts
CURE. Her role in the campaign was to contact
religious groups all around the country, explain the campaign
to them, and ask them if they would consider joining
this effort. According to her, in just a few short months, that
project spread quickly in more than 35 states with groups
participating in tolling the bells. The project made capital
punishment more real to people as they walked down some
street and heard the bells toll knowing someone was being
executed in some state in this country. Sister Briggs is now
deceased. Pending Prison Reform Projects
There are many prison policy proposals and a national campaign
CURE and its chapters are still working on. In fact, in
the wake of the FCC’s decision on prison phone cost regulations
in August 2013, CURE launched another nationwide
campaign, this time over safe hot and cold temperatures
in prisons and jails. A strong support of the Texas CURE
allowed the purchase and distribution of thousands of fans
to people in the Texas prisons to show policymakers and
prison leaders the need to address temperature issues in
prison settings. “The heat issue in prison throughout the
country is life-threatening,” Charlie explained. “We were
able to bring it to the attention of the American Corrections
Association.” The American Corrections Association (ACA)
is the organization that governs accreditation and prison
standards in the United States. Dianne Tramutola-Lawson,
Executive Director of Colorado-CURE and current CURE
Board Chairperson, has been CURE’s representative at
ACA national meetings twice a year. As the wife of a person
formerly incarcerated, she especially has been a voice for
those in prison and their loved ones. Also, she has over the
years gained great respect from the wardens and prison
directors who are members of the ACA. Although the Association
turned down CURE’s request for climate control, two
state prison directors who are members of the ACA spoke
about the importance of setting and enforcing standards for
temperature conditions in prison.
For the last seven years, CURE has campaigned for a controversial
proposal: the privatization of prison industries.
Although opposed to private prisons, the organization’s
leaders believe that prison industries in private hands could
be a big help for inmates. CURE’s leaders argue that this will
not only involve paying the minimum wage to inmates, but it
will be more likely to provide the latter with meaningful work
experience that could help them find jobs on release. Unions
like the AFL-CIO are highly opposed to the idea. But Charlie
has a reply for them, “Most of them [inmates] are idle and
most of them are going to come out. If we don’t give them
employable skills, we’re in trouble.” “Why cannot private
business come in to teach high-tech skills that lead to good paying
jobs?” He wondered. CURE leaders view work and
education as the path to better lives for prisoners and their
families, but at the same time, they demand that private
prison industries should be accompanied with guarantees
and protection against exploitation of the inmates and constant
monitoring of inmate work arrangements.
Juvenile justice has been another major issue on the reform
agenda of CURE for the last ten years, because there is
a growing tendency among law enforcement services to
“crack down” very severely on young offenders. The organization’s
position is that rehabilitative opportunities for incarcerated
juveniles are essential. CURE has fiercely advocated
in Congress against the practice in many states that allows
life sentences for children and youth. Other prison reform projects
CURE is still advocating for in Congress include:
• reforms to abolish control units and long-term lockdowns
in prisons;
• measures to return Pell (education) Grants to inmates;
• funding for mentoring programs for incarcerated
youth;
• reforms for medical treatment of the mentally ill in
prison;
• federal aid to states for assistance programs for violent
offenders when they are released;
• increased staff for the prison and jail litigation section
within the U.S. Department of Justice.
• rehabilitation at the local and county levels instead
of sending prisoners to state penitentiaries.
• measures to slow down the application of the death
penalty through the Racial Justice Act.
• reforms to restore voting rights to persons serving
felony convictions in prison; and
• reforms to abolish sex offender registries and civil
commitment of persons convicted of sex offences.

CURE MOVES ONTO THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE

By the late 1990s, the national stage became too small for
CURE’s enterprising vision on prison reform. Thus, confident
about their established advocacy competencies and
accomplishments, and seeking an international leverage for
the work being done at the state and federal levels, CURE
leaders decided to take prison reform advocacy to the
global level. “Take it easy Charlie. You have done enough,”103
Bishop McCarthy, one of the biggest supporters of CURE,
said to Charlie. “Not so,” replied the latter. “We want to go
INTERNATIONAL!”

CURE’s Global Outreach

Fifteen years after moving to D.C., National CURE has now
become International CURE, consisting of state and issue
chapters as well as foreign country chapters. The organization
has collaborated with prison organizations in various
countries since 1997.104 International CURE has chapters
and affiliates on most continents. Currently, there are twenty-
four CURE country chapters,105 including twenty in Africa,
two in Asia (India and Thailand), and two in South America
(Brazil and Peru). Delegations from thirty-five U.S. states as
well as four country chapters attended the CURE’s international
convention of September 1-3, 2012 in D.C. Many
African chapters could not attend the meeting because of
U.S. visa issues. To promote outreach, dialogue, and action
among its chapters, International CURE established an
international program of networking. A component of this
program is the creation of websites for CURE chapters in African
countries. Today, CURE Nigeria, CURE Ghana, CURE
Togo, and CURE Zambia each have a website.
International conferences on human rights and criminal
justice reform are a major part of CURE’s global outreach
and research efforts. From 2001 to this year, six conferences
took place on four different continents.
• The first International Conference on Human Rights
and Prison Reform took place in New York City, October
6-11, 2001. It was a success even though it
occurred just three weeks after the tragic events
of September 11th. During this Conference, key UN
human rights documents were reviewed by 225 citizens
from 24 countries. Each of those landmark
documents has provisions related to criminal justice.
Representatives from each country evaluated
the application of those provisions in their own
country. The reviewed documents included: International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights; Second Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Aiming
at the Abolition of the Death Penalty; the Convention
on the Rights of the Child; and the Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Representatives
from the participating countries were asked to
introduce a resolution in the UN that would “make
real” the principle of universal suffrage in regard to
prisoners.106 Jane Addams College of Social Work,
UIC, co-sponsored the conference and four subsequent
ones.*
• The 2nd CURE’s International Conference on Human
Rights and Prison Reform took place in Geneva,
Switzerland. Very little information could befound about that event, and, according to Charlie,
the Conference was a disappointment in terms of
attendance and achievements.
• The 3rd CURE’s International Conference on Human
Rights and Prison Reform took place in Washington,
D.C., June 24-27, 2006. It was combined
with the 2006 CURE National Convention. It focused
on the analysis of the detention conditions
in South American prisons. At this conference,
CURE released a study titled, Dignity of the Individual:
Evaluation of Prisons in the Organization of
American States. This was the result of two years’
work involving over a hundred volunteer workers in
35 countries in the western hemisphere. The book
examines key problems in prison systems in American
countries and has 24 recommendations. These
recommendations apply particularly to the social integration
of detainees, but many of them, and the
restorative philosophy they represent, are very applicable
more broadly, and particularly to the larger
population of marginalized, socially disabled persons.
• The 4th CURE’s International Conference on Human
Rights and Prison Reform was held June 22-24,
2009, in Geneva, Switzerland. Actually, it took place
in the period when the OPCAT (Optional Protocol
to the United Nations Convention Against Torture
and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment) Commission reported to
the Convention Against Torture (CAT) Commission.
The theme of the Conference was “Prison Reform
in the World.” Seventy-five persons attended the
Conference. They were representatives of 20 countries
on the five continents, including Australia, Argentina,
Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Greece,
India, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines,
Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States,
Uruguay and Zambia. A consequence of the conference
was a letter to the Secretary General of the
United Nations Ban Ki Moon, which was included
in the Proceedings of the Conference.107 A major
component associated with this conference was
the PAJART process (Prison and Justice: Assessment,
Recommendations and Transformative Programs),
a comprehensive assessment of prisons
and justice systems in 13 African countries.
• The 5th international conference, also co-sponsored
by Jane Addams College of Social Work, was held
in Abuja, Nigeria, February 21-24, 2011, with an
attendance of 170 participants from 25 countries,
including representatives from the U.S.A.,
South America, Europe and Africa. The theme of
the Conference was “From Retribution to Restoration,
Rehabilitation and Reintegration.” Sixteen
panels discussed the transformation of justice and
prison systems from mainly retribution to primarily
restoration, rehabilitation, and reintegration. At this
conference, International CURE released a booklet
titled, “Ways-Forward to Transform Justice and
Prison Systems—From primarily retribution to primarily
restoration, rehabilitation, and reintegration.”
The booklet presents multi-country analyses of 5
key problem-areas, drawn from CURE assessments
of justice and prison systems in 14 African
countries108 and 35 countries in the western hemisphere.
It provides the basis for CURE’s platform of
48 ways to bring about significant prison reform in
the world by 2015. As part of the follow-up to this
conference, International CURE sent hard copies of
both the Abuja Conference Communiqué and the
booklet to national directors of prisons in 34 nations.
109 Excerpts from the cover letter, signed by
Charlie, state:
We challenge you to become part of this
worldwide transformation movement, and
set 5-year and 10-year goals for justice and
prison reforms that are most meaningful
in your country. We hope you will find that
a subset of these 48 Ways-Forward will
largely match some of your country’s needs.
• The 6th International Conference recently took
place March 4 – 8, 2014 in Bangkok, Thailand. The
theme of the conference was “Looking at the plight
of incarcerated women.” Participants came from 18
countries. The conference concluded with a tour of
a 4,500 female prison near Bangkok.

CURE and the United Nations

International CURE has consultative status with the United
Nations Organization, which enables it to participate in international
commissions on a broad range of discussions on
issues affecting incarcerated people in many regions of the
world. Every year, the organization sends representatives to
meetings of the Human Rights Council in Geneva and to
meetings of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and
Criminal Justice (CCPCJ). International CURE submitted an
intervention paper to the UN Commission on Social Development
at its meeting of February 6-15, 2008 at the UN
Headquarters in New York. The document was titled “Poverty,
Prisons, and Social Development.” On March 7, 2008,
International CURE presented a report to the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights, of the Organization of
American States. This was the result of two years’ work
involving over a hundred volunteer workers in 35 countries
in the western hemisphere. The material for the presentation
was drawn largely from the book produced by International
CURE titled Dignity of the Individual.110
In 2010, CURE had significant input in various UN commissions.
In February 2010, the organization submitted another
written intervention to the 48th meeting of the UN Commission
on Social Development. The intervention included
15 key recommendations for reform in justice and prison
systems. Copies of that intervention were given to all the
country delegates at the Commission meeting. In the same
month, Cora (Betty) Cypser, a veteran member of International
CURE, presented a verbal statement from the organization
to the assembled UN delegates on prison reform. It
was notable that the CURE verbal presentation was one of
the very few followed by applause.
Pauline and Charlie, and longtime CURE member Kathryn
Rodriguez represented International CURE at the 12th
United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice which was held April 12-19, 2010 in Salvador, Brazil.
Over 3,000 representatives from 102 countries participated
in the Congress. At the beginning of the event, Charlie
reported on the progress in the United States in ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture
(OPCAT). The same year, CURE had input in the UN Universal
Periodic Review (UPR) on Corrections in the United
States. The UPR, established by the UN General Assembly
resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006, is a new human
rights mechanism. Through the UPR, the UN Human Rights
Council (HRC) reviews, on a periodic basis, the fulfillment
by each of the United Nations’ 192 Member States of their
human rights obligations and commitments. For the 2010
UPR, which includes an assessment of the United States’
adherence to its commitments, Charlie established thirteen
working groups, each consisting of 3-6 experienced CURE
members, to examine possible US human rights violations in
thirteen key subjects and report on these. The thirteen committees
identified violations of specific parts of a number of
human rights documents to which the US is bound. Then
they made recommendations to reduce those violations.
Their results were submitted to the UN’s Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights.