The Births in Custody Reporting Act of 2025 conditions certain federal Byrne/Justice Assistance grant funds on States providing quarterly, anonymized, aggregate data to the Attorney General about inmates who are pregnant or who give birth while in custody. The bill spells out detailed data elements—race and ethnicity, timing of admission and release, pregnancy testing and prenatal visits, pregnancy outcomes, use of restraints (including during labor and transport), postpartum care, and placements in restrictive housing—and requires the Attorney General to publish the reports and run a study on causes and management practices.
This matters because it creates a federal lever to produce the first standardized, national dataset on pregnancies in jails, prisons, juvenile facilities, and contract facilities. The information could inform oversight, litigation, corrective policy changes, and public-health interventions, but it also raises implementation and privacy questions for state and local correctional systems that will need to collect, certify, and transmit the data to secure federal standards while avoiding disclosure of personally identifying information.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires States that receive specified DOJ grant funds to submit quarterly, anonymized aggregate reports to the Attorney General, following AG guidance, covering any inmate who is pregnant or gives birth in custody across local, state, juvenile, and contracted facilities. Reports must include specified metrics on testing, prenatal and postpartum care, outcomes, use of restraints, and restrictive housing.
Who It Affects
State corrections departments and departments of public safety, county and municipal jails, juvenile facilities, private contract facilities, state data/IT units, and DOJ grant administrators will have new reporting responsibilities; researchers, advocates, and federal oversight bodies will gain access to the resulting dataset. Facilities that rely on Byrne/JAG subpart 1 funds face compliance risk tied to those grants.
Why It Matters
The Act fills a long-standing national data gap about maternal outcomes behind bars and ties compliance to a concrete financial incentive (possible reduction of up to 10% of certain federal funds). That combination makes this a potential catalyst for policy change, standard-setting around prenatal/postpartum care, and scrutiny of restraint and segregation practices inside custody systems.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a reporting requirement for any State that receives funding under the referenced subpart of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act: each such State must submit quarterly, anonymized aggregate information to the Attorney General about people who are pregnant at admission or who give birth while detained or incarcerated. The scope is broad: municipal and county jails, State prisons, State-run and contracted boot camps, juvenile facilities, and other contract facilities fall within the reporting universe.
Reporting must follow guidelines the Attorney General issues; the statute lists minimum data elements the reports must include. Those elements cover demographic breakdowns, timing of admission and release, whether pregnancy testing and prenatal visits occurred within seven days of admission or detection, the pregnancy outcome (with an enumerated list from live birth to maternal death), where the outcome occurred (on-site or at a named off-site location), and detailed information on restraint use during pregnancy, labor, delivery, and transport.
The bill also requires reporting on postpartum status (defined as at least 12 weeks after delivery), whether postpartum screenings and medical follow-ups occurred within specified windows, and placements in restrictive housing while pregnant or postpartum.The Act prohibits sharing personally identifiable information in the federal submissions and gives States 120 days after enactment to start complying, with a one-time discretionary 120-day extension available from the Attorney General for States making good-faith efforts. For fiscal years after the compliance window, the Attorney General may withhold up to 10 percent of funds under the specified Byrne/JAG subpart from noncompliant States and reallocate withheld amounts to States in compliance.
Finally, the Attorney General must publish the reports, conduct a study using the collected information to assess how outcomes relate to facility management and to identify improvements, and send Congress a findings report within two years of enactment.
The Five Things You Need to Know
States receiving funds under the specified Byrne/JAG subpart must submit quarterly anonymized, aggregate reports to the Attorney General covering any inmate who is pregnant or gives birth in custody.
The reports must include defined data points: counts and race/ethnicity, admission quarter, pregnancy testing and prenatal visit timeliness, enumerated pregnancy outcomes, location of outcome (on-site or named off-site), detailed restraint use (timing, body part, justification), postpartum screening and follow-up within specified windows, and restrictive-housing incidence and duration.
The compliance clock is 120 days after enactment, with the Attorney General able to grant a single additional 120-day extension for States making a good-faith effort to comply.
For fiscal years after the compliance period, the Attorney General may reduce up to 10% of a noncompliant State’s allocation under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act; any withheld amounts may be reallocated to compliant States.
The Attorney General must publish submitted reports, perform a study examining links between adverse pregnancy outcomes and facility management practices, and deliver a findings report to Congress within two years.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This brief provision simply names the statute the ‘‘Births in Custody Reporting Act of 2025’’ (BCRA of 2025). It has no operative substance but establishes the Act’s public reference name for subsequent guidance and agency actions.
Which States must report and what facilities are covered
This subsection triggers the reporting duty by tying it to State receipt of funds for the specified program under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act; it is therefore conditional on grant eligibility rather than universal. The coverage language is expansive: local jails, State prisons, boot camps (including contracted ones), contract facilities, and juvenile facilities are all in scope, which means smaller county jails and privately operated prisons will be swept into the dataset if their State accepts the linked federal funds.
Minimum data fields and the level of detail expected
The statute enumerates granular metrics rather than leaving the dataset definition entirely to the Attorney General. Beyond counts and demographics, the list requires time-sensitive health-care indicators (pregnancy test within 1 week of admission, prenatal visit within 7 days of detection), an enumerated set of pregnancy outcomes (live birth, stillbirth, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, maternal/neonatal death, preterm birth), specifics about where outcomes occurred, and itemized restraint reporting (timing, body part restrained, justification). By law, those fields are the floor the AG’s guidance must cover; implementing agencies will need intake, medical-record, and security logs to pull the information together.
PII limits, timelines to comply, and funding penalties
The bill bars personally identifiable information from the transmitted dataset but does not prescribe deidentification standards; the Attorney General’s guidelines will therefore determine how States meet the anonymity requirement. States get 120 days after enactment to start reporting, with a discretionary 120-day extension available. If a State fails to comply after the applicable window, the Attorney General may reduce up to 10% of that State’s allocation under the specified Byrne/JAG subpart; withheld funds are eligible for reallocation to States that did comply, creating a financial enforcement mechanism rather than criminal penalties.
Public access to reports and an AG study with congressional delivery
The Attorney General must make each State report publicly available and must conduct a study using the collected data to identify how reported outcomes relate to facility management and whether policy changes could reduce adverse events. The AG must deliver findings to Congress within two years. That public-facing requirement opens the door to external analysis, benchmarking across States, and potential follow-on regulatory or legislative activity based on the study’s conclusions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Pregnant and postpartum incarcerated people — the dataset creates visibility into testing, prenatal and postpartum care, restraint use, and segregation, which advocacy groups and clinicians can use to press for better treatment and targeted interventions. Increased transparency raises the prospect of remedial policy changes at facility and state levels.
- Public-health researchers and policy analysts — the statute produces the first consistent national dataset on pregnancy in custody, enabling cross-jurisdictional comparison, epidemiological study of outcomes (stillbirths, maternal/neonatal deaths, preterm births), and evaluation of interventions.
- Advocacy groups and civil-rights litigants — public reports provide evidence to support oversight, litigation, or legislative campaigns aimed at correcting systemic deficiencies in maternal care and restraint/segregation practices.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local corrections agencies — they must collect, validate, and transmit the enumerated data elements, which will require staff time, health-record integration, and possibly new IT systems or contractor support, all without an express federal funding stream to cover those start-up costs.
- Small county jails and under-resourced facilities — jurisdictions with low staffing and limited electronic medical records will face disproportionate costs to produce timely, accurate, deidentified reports and may struggle to meet the 120-day window.
- State grant administrators and the Department of Justice — the DOJ must develop guidance, accept and publish datasets, perform quality checks, and run the statutorily required study, creating administrative costs and workload that the bill does not separately fund.
- States at risk of funding reductions — the penalty is financial (up to 10% of certain grant funds), so States that cannot comply quickly may effectively lose public-safety resources or have to divert funds to meet reporting obligations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between transparency-driven accountability and the practical costs and privacy risks of producing a national dataset: stronger reporting requirements expose failures and enable corrective action, but they impose burdens and reidentification risks on under-resourced local jurisdictions and may result in financial penalties that further strain those same systems—so the law trades one problem (opacity) for another (capacity and privacy challenges) without prescribing how to manage that trade-off.
The Act mandates standardized reporting but leaves key implementation choices to the Attorney General. The statute prohibits personally identifiable information but does not define deidentification standards or minimum cell-size suppression rules.
In practice, small counties or rare-event cells (for example, maternal deaths or neonatal deaths in sparsely populated facilities) create a reidentification risk unless the AG issues strong anonymization protocols or exempts small-sample disclosures. That tension—public transparency versus privacy protection—will shape how useful and usable the published data are.
Another tension arises from enforcement by grant reduction. Conditioning Byrne/JAG subpart funds creates leverage, but withholding funds may punish the very jurisdictions that lack capacity to comply, exacerbating resource gaps.
The data elements the bill mandates are detailed (timing of tests, justification for restraints, postpartum follow-up), yet the statute does not require standards of care, remedial steps, or federal technical assistance. Consequently, the law produces visibility but not guaranteed improvements in clinical practice or custody management.
Finally, the planned AG study will be observational: causal attribution between management practices and adverse outcomes will be limited by confounding, variation in clinical screening practices, and differences in documentation quality across facilities, so policymakers should temper expectations about definitive causal findings.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.