HISTORY OF NATIONAL CURE

History of National CURE

CURE and Prison Reform: The Early Years

The Call to Activism for Prison Reform

In 1969, Charles and Pauline Sullivan left religious life to pursue social activism. Charlie departed priesthood after criticizing the Catholic Church’s cautious stance on civil rights, while Pauline left her sisterhood after 13 years, frustrated by the Church’s guarded positions on issues like the American Indian Movement and LGBTQ+ causes.

The couple met in St. Paul, Minnesota and married. They traveled in a 1965 Volkswagen van before settling in Texas, driven by conviction that their work should serve “people at the bottom.”

While visiting a friend detained in Bexar County jail on civil disobedience charges, Charlie witnessed inmates describing poor conditions. When detainees staged a hunger strike, the Sullivans organized sympathetic action outside the facility, leading to Charlie’s brief detention. He later used court proceedings to advocate for prison reform.

The Sullivans participated in the May Day 1971 anti-war demonstrations in Washington, D.C., where they were arrested alongside 15,000 others. Following the 1971 Attica prison uprising—which resulted in state killings of 29 prisoners and ten correctional officers—they committed to long-term prison reform work.

Launching CURE

Before the late 1970s, Texas prisons concentrated in the eastern region made family visits prohibitively difficult and expensive for relatives across the state. Some families hadn’t seen incarcerated loved ones in over a decade.

The Sullivans initiated a prison visit bus service in San Antonio. Starting January 2, 1972, with four leased buses and volunteers, they transported families on arduous 500-mile round trips. The initiative’s unexpected success prompted replication in Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston.

“We were organizing without quite knowing it,” Charlie explained, describing how the bus service created a political constituency among prisoners’ relatives statewide.

The organization’s name emerged deliberately. The Sullivans chose “Citizen” (C) for grassroots involvement, “United” (U) emphasizing collective action, and “Rehabilitation” (R) reflecting their belief that most Americans supported rehabilitative incarceration purposes. Seeking a word beginning with E, they consulted a dictionary and selected “errant,” meaning people who make mistakes—a term that became accepted prison vocabulary in Texas.

Moving from Services to Advocacy

During prison visits, the Sullivans discovered the “building tender” system—a cruel practice using inmates as guards and cell block supervisors with weapons access and authority to punish or kill fellow prisoners deemed troublemakers or whistleblowers.

In February 1973, they announced CURE’s formal creation as a prison reform organization. Working with legendary reformers Frances and Fred Cruz, they sought legislative sponsors for a bill addressing this system. Though initially discouraged, Representative Joe L. Hernandez, representing San Antonio’s poorest district, agreed to introduce their bill.

The Sullivans organized volunteers and families to testify about building tender abuses. In April 1973, the legislature swiftly passed House Bill 1056, prohibiting inmates from holding administrative or disciplinary power over other inmates.

Implementation delayed until 1983, when Federal District Judge William Wayne Justice ordered comprehensive prison reform requiring the Texas Department of Corrections to hire 2,500 additional correctional officers replacing inmate guards.

Following this victory, the Sullivans recognized that organizations combining direct services with advocacy faced inherent conflicts. Services provided short-term solutions but maintained status quo; advocacy effected systemic change but attracted minimal funding. “Advocacy is not where the money is because it can be controversial,” Charlie noted.

CURE adopted a non-confrontational strategy, shifting from demonstrations to legislative engagement. “We joined the establishment,” Charlie explained, becoming professionally dressed advocates rather than confrontational activists—an approach some members opposed but which ultimately proved more effective.

In July 1974, the Sullivans relocated to Austin, the state capital, to engage more directly with legislators.

Impact of Spirituality on the Activist Couple

Life in Austin proved austere. Living on $400 monthly, they supplemented donations through substitute teaching and taxi driving. Pauline stated: “We’re not lacking for anything that’s important to us.”

Their education levels—Charlie held a Master of Arts in theology; Pauline possessed a Bachelor of Arts degree with graduate work in special education—contrasted sharply with their modest circumstances. Unlike Capitol lobbyists representing wealthy interests, they offered only photocopied fact sheets and earnest testimony without resources to fund meals or political donations.

Their commitment stemmed from spiritual conviction. Pauline explained: “We wouldn’t be in this work if it didn’t have a spiritual basis.” Their simple lifestyle reflected vows of poverty taken during religious life.

Charlie relied on Michel Quoist’s prayer “Lord. Why Did You Tell Me to Love?” for spiritual sustenance amid overwhelming work. Mutual support sustained them—Charlie stated: “I couldn’t go on here if it weren’t for Pauline.”

Ironically, the Catholic Church provided substantial support despite both Sullivans having left their orders. The Texas Catholic Conference offered funding, encouragement, and advice. Bishop John McCarthy and his successor Brother Richard Daly championed CURE’s activities. Later, Father Mike Bryant, chaplain at the D.C. jail, provided assistance, and Pauline’s former religious community, the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, remained supportive.

Advocating from Inside the Policymaking Arena

In Austin, the Sullivans spent considerable time lobbying legislators, testifying before committees, and engaging press to advance humane treatment, work-release programs, and community-based corrections while opposing expensive new prison construction.

In 1974, Charlie was appointed to a citizens advisory committee studying prison reform and unexpectedly elected chairman. The committee’s harsh criticism of the Texas Department of Corrections made him unwelcome to corrections leadership, particularly TDC Director William J. “Jim” Estelle, who rejected reform requests and walked out of CURE’s first 1975 state convention after being questioned about inmate repression.

Despite opposition, CURE maintained steady criticism of the corrections system. In 1975, CURE established the Texas Commission on Jail Standards and influenced the Texas Adult Probation Commission’s creation. The organization twice defeated proposals for additional prison construction.

In 1978, CURE published “The Maze,” detailing the complicated parole process and how governors obstructed parole consideration. The Parole Board eventually adopted it as official guidance.

Between 1978 and 1981, CURE facilitated litigation of Ruiz v. Estelle, the longest and most comprehensive prison reform lawsuit in U.S. history. Inmate David Ruiz sued TDC Director Estelle over dangerous conditions, claiming “cruel and unusual punishment” violating the Eighth Amendment. After 129 trial days, Federal District Judge William Wayne Justice ruled in plaintiffs’ favor in 1981, ordering sweeping systemic changes.

CURE’s fortune shifted dramatically in 1983 when financial constraints forced state budget writers to consult prison reformers. Facing recession and declining oil revenues, conservative lawmakers previously rejecting reform reconsidered CURE’s long-defended alternatives: halfway houses, restitution centers, and increased paroles. Texas housed 94% of inmates in maximum security compared to the 42% national average.

Sixteen bills, two resolutions, and one constitutional amendment emerged from the 1983 session—“the most productive legislative session in criminal justice reform in Texas history,” Charlie observed. The restitution center bill proved especially popular, confining property offenders in community facilities for up to one year, requiring restitution payments from their wages.

The reforms prompted TDC Director Estelle’s departure. CURE leaders urged appointing Raymond Procunier, an experienced outside reformer who dismantled obsolete control models, resulting in officer and warden terminations while implementing sophisticated organizational approaches. TDC and the state attorney general entered settlement negotiations, eventually signing consent decrees on healthcare and force usage.

In 1984, Procunier addressed CURE’s state convention, prompting Charlie to observe: “Our dreams have finally become a reality.”

CURE Takes the National Stage

In 1985, riding momentum from unprecedented Texas reforms, the Sullivans held their most successful fundraiser, packed a U-Haul truck, and relocated to Washington, D.C. Their plan involved mobilizing coast-to-coast networks of ex-prisoners and families while replicating congressional achievements similar to those in Texas.

For several years, they inhabited a one-bedroom apartment in a drug-ridden Northeast Washington neighborhood. CURE’s office occupied a former priest’s bedroom atop narrow stairs in an old Catholic Church building.

Establishing and Developing Chapters

From Texas advocacy experience, the Sullivans understood grassroots organizing’s critical importance. News of CURE’s Texas impact preceded their D.C. arrival, generating requests for chapter-launching guidance. By late 1985, various groups sought advice establishing advocacy organizations in other cities and states.

After establishing over a dozen chapters, CURE held its first national convention in June 1987, drawing delegations from more than 10 states. Consistent biennial conventions followed.

Special issue chapters emerged in 1991, addressing specific nationwide concerns unmanageable at state levels. Over a dozen specialized chapters have been created, some subsequently becoming inactive. Existing chapters include FedCURE, FIND-CURE (for incarcerated non-citizens), NDRAN (National Death Row Assistance Network), CURE-SORT (for sex offenders), CURE-Women Incarcerated, and CURE for Vets.

New chapter leaders often believed they needed high-profile politicians or experts for organizational credibility. Charlie expressed frustration: “We are always looking for a Messiah! Someone to save us!” He emphasized that grassroots members themselves constituted the expertise and advocated team approaches including both free-world people and incarcerated individuals.

CURE launched Chapter Leadership Development Training in 2003, training hundreds planning to build or strengthen chapters through periodic conferences and workshops.

CURE developed empowerment initiatives reinforcing D.C. policy campaigns. In 2002, the organization initiated voter registration drives in Baltimore City jail and Washington, D.C. jail, demonstrating that jail populations represented legitimate political constituencies. Charlie became an official Voter Registration Volunteer for Maryland after specialized training, ultimately registering hundreds of inmates.

CURE spearheaded local campaigns improving detention conditions and family communication. The organization persuaded D.C. Department of Corrections to increase buses for Lorton prison family visits and worked against D.C.’s 1992 death penalty ballot initiative, which voters rejected two-to-one.

State chapters generated reforms with broader impact. Colorado CURE created mentorship programs for formerly incarcerated life-sentence individuals. North Carolina CURE made its prison system the first complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Michigan CURE advocated for parole guidelines now used routinely statewide and secured significant prison phone rate reductions.

However, quantifying individual chapter contributions proves difficult. Former CURE Chairperson Kay Perry noted: “We [CURE] are just one voice among many that are calling for more logical and humane policies. It is simply impossible to know if something we said or wrote had a significant impact.”

A Determined Quest for Sponsorship for Prison Reform in Congress

Adjusting to Congress’s 500+ legislators proved challenging compared to Austin’s intimate legislative community. Finding sympathetic lawmakers on prison issues proved extraordinarily difficult, as few dared raise this controversial topic.

Exhausted and discouraged, Charlie encountered Congressman John Conyers, Jr., of Detroit, then Criminal Justice Subcommittee Chairman, in a Capitol hallway. Charlie delivered a 30-second elevator pitch about CURE’s work that impressed Conyers sufficiently to request further information. “As Rep. Joe Hernandez did in Texas CURE in 1973, Congressman Conyers did for National CURE in 1987,” Charlie noted. Conyers delivered the keynote address at CURE’s first 1987 national convention and became the organization’s first honoree.

CURE’s primary congressional support derived from the Congressional Black Caucus. Working relationships developed with Representatives Robert Scott of Virginia, Danny Davis and Bobby Rush of Illinois. Congressman Scott became a close second supporter to Conyers. Representative Rush championed released prisoner Medicaid eligibility and prison phone issue leadership, while Representative Davis supported reentry initiatives. Republicans Frank Wolf and Senator James Inhofe also provided collaboration on incarceration alternatives.

Contributions to Prison Reform at the Federal Level

From 1989 through 2013, CURE spearheaded or contributed to substantial congressional legislation through testimonies, policy proposals, lobbying, and grassroots organizing:

The WIC Program (1989): CURE campaigned enabling pregnant prisoners to receive supplemental foods. Pauline, nicknamed “the prison baby lady” by skeptical USDA staff, persistently advocated until gaining compliance.

Family Unity Demonstration Project Act (1993): The legislation allowed non-violent female prisoners to serve sentences with small children. Though enacted with Congresswoman Maxine Waters’ assistance, no appropriated funds materialized from the $20 million authorized.

1996 Initiatives: CURE contributed to establishing an Office of Correctional Job Training and Placement within the Justice Department and supported Specter Grants providing prisoner education as reduced Pell Grant replacements.

Second Chance Act (2007): Signed into law by President Bush in April 2008, this legislation ensured safe, successful prisoner community reintegration. CURE participated in the successful coalition campaign.

Federal Prison Work Incentive Act (2009): FedCURE led efforts for this “Good Time Bill,” allowing sentence reductions for prisoners with exemplary records. Despite Obama administration rumors about signing, the bill never emerged from the House Judiciary Committee.

FCC Prison Phone Regulation (2013): On August 9, 2013, the Federal Communications Commission announced measures dramatically reducing inmate phone call costs from one dollar to 25 cents per minute through rate caps. Charlie described this as “a great victory for CURE and all the groups which collaborated” through a 12-year national grassroots campaign.

Models of Winning Campaigns

In January 2000, CURE launched the “Equitable Telephone Charges” campaign, coordinated by Kay Perry, targeting predatory phone rates charged to incarcerated individuals and families. When CURE began, only Nebraska permitted debit calling; other states required collect calls at inflated rates.

Phone companies justified elevated rates by citing unpaid debts. Interstate calls were dominated by Global Tel Link Corp. and Securus Technologies Inc., with rates varying dramatically—$6.45 for 15 minutes in Texas versus $16.55 in Idaho. Commissions to prisons routinely reached 40-50% of call costs.

The campaign created a website and distributed over 37,000 grassroots packets to participants across all 50 states and D.C. The American Friends Service Committee’s Criminal Justice Program assisted. Campaign materials targeted state legislators, governors, prison leaders, and telephone companies.

While lawsuits challenging high rates were typically dismissed, awareness grew. In 2003, a court referred the case to the FCC for resolution. CURE served as plaintiff in that litigation. Pro bono attorneys pressed the FCC for action while CURE chapter leaders educated FCC staff on affordable phone rate importance. Congressional bills stalled, leaving the case before the FCC for nearly a decade.

The “Campaign for Prison Phone Justice” coalition formed in 2012 under the Center for Media Justice, Prison Legal News, and Working Narratives leadership. This coalition engaged diverse constituencies—notably including the conservative Right on Crime Campaign—sharing imprisonment impact stories through internet platforms.

Perry identified four campaign lessons:

  1. Tenacity represents essential effective advocacy characteristics for sustained campaigns.
  2. Coalitions prove valuable as different groups contribute varied resources and perspectives.
  3. Numbers create power—policymakers pay greater attention and affected individuals speak up more readily knowing others participate, reducing retaliation fears.
  4. Internet-based advocacy and social media significantly contribute to campaigns through reduced costs and simplified participation.

In September 2000, CURE launched the “For Whom the Bells Toll” ecumenical campaign requesting religious congregations nationwide to toll bells for two minutes at 6:00 p.m. during executions. For institutions lacking bells, CURE encouraged black door drapes or ribbon displays.

Dominican nun Dorothy Briggs coordinated the movement, which spread quickly across 35 states within months. The initiative made capital punishment tangible to communities hearing bells toll during executions.

Pending Prison Reform Projects

Following the FCC’s August 2013 decision, CURE launched campaigns addressing safe hot and cold temperatures in prisons and jails. Texas CURE’s support enabled purchasing and distributing thousands of fans, demonstrating temperature control necessity to policymakers and corrections leadership. Charlie explained: “The heat issue in prison throughout the country is life-threatening.”

For seven years, CURE has campaigned for private prison industry involvement—not private prisons themselves. CURE leaders argue private industries would pay minimum wages and provide meaningful work experience valuable for post-release employment. Charlie countered union opposition: “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.”

Juvenile justice has occupied CURE’s agenda for a decade, opposing severe law enforcement approaches toward young offenders and advocating for rehabilitative opportunities. CURE fiercely contests practices allowing life sentences for children and youth.

Additional advocated reforms include:

  • Control unit abolition and long-term lockdown reduction
  • Pell Grant restoration for inmates
  • Incarcerated youth mentoring program funding
  • Mentally ill prisoner medical treatment improvements
  • Federal reentry assistance funding for violent offenders
  • Prison and jail litigation section staffing increases within the Justice Department
  • Local and county rehabilitation emphasis over state penitentiary placement
  • Death penalty application slowdown through the Racial Justice Act
  • Felony conviction voting rights restoration
  • Sex offender registry and civil commitment abolition

CURE Moves Onto the International Stage

By the late 1990s, the national stage appeared insufficient for CURE’s expanding prison reform vision. Confident in their advocacy competencies and accomplishments, CURE leaders pursued international leverage for state and federal work. When longtime supporter Bishop McCarthy suggested Charlie had done enough, Charlie replied: “Not so. We want to go INTERNATIONAL!”

CURE’s Global Outreach

Fifteen years after moving to D.C., National CURE became International CURE, incorporating state, issue, and foreign country chapters. The organization has collaborated with prison organizations globally since 1997.

Currently, 24 CURE country chapters exist, including 20 in Africa, 2 in Asia (India and Thailand), and 2 in South America (Brazil and Peru). Delegations from 35 U.S. states and four country chapters attended CURE’s September 2012 international D.C. convention. Many African chapters couldn’t attend due to U.S. visa complications.

International CURE established networking programs promoting outreach, dialogue, and action. African chapters—CURE Nigeria, CURE Ghana, CURE Togo, and CURE Zambia—each maintain websites.

Six international conferences addressing human rights and criminal justice reform occurred across four continents from 2001 through 2014:

First Conference (October 2001, New York): Held just three weeks after September 11th, this conference reviewed 225 citizens from 24 countries analyzing key UN human rights documents with criminal justice provisions. Participants evaluated these provisions’ applications in their respective countries. Reviewed documents included the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (death penalty abolition), the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention Against Torture. Jane Addams College of Social Work co-sponsored this and subsequent conferences.

Second Conference (Geneva, Switzerland): Limited information exists regarding this conference, which Charlie described as disappointing regarding attendance and achievements.

Third Conference (June 2006, Washington, D.C.): Combined with CURE’s 2006 National Convention, this conference analyzed South American prison detention conditions. CURE released a comprehensive study, “Dignity of the Individual: Evaluation of Prisons in the Organization of American States,” representing two years’ work involving 100+ volunteers across 35 countries. The book examined key prison system problems and provided 24 recommendations applicable to detainee social integration and broader marginalized populations.

Fourth Conference (June 2009, Geneva, Switzerland): Held during UN OPCAT Commission reporting to the Convention Against Torture, this conference drew 75 participants from 20 countries across five continents. A major component, the PAJART process (Prison and Justice: Assessment, Recommendations and Transformative Programs), conducted comprehensive assessments across 13 African countries.

Fifth Conference (February 2011, Abuja, Nigeria): This conference, co-sponsored by Jane Addams College, attracted 170 participants from 25 countries. Sixteen panels discussed justice and prison system transformation from retribution to restoration, rehabilitation, and reintegration. International CURE released “Ways-Forward to Transform Justice and Prison Systems,” presenting multi-country analyses from 14 African countries and 35 western hemisphere countries’ assessments. The booklet provided CURE’s 48-way prison reform platform targeting 2015. International CURE subsequently sent materials to prison directors in 34 nations.

Sixth Conference (March 2014, Bangkok, Thailand): This conference focused on incarcerated women’s plight, drawing participants from 18 countries and concluding with a 4,500-capacity female prison tour.

CURE and the United Nations

International CURE maintains consultative status with the United Nations Organization, enabling participation in international commission discussions affecting incarcerated people globally. The organization sends representatives to annual Human Rights Council meetings in Geneva and UN Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Commission meetings.

In February 2008, International CURE submitted an intervention to the UN Commission on Social Development titled “Poverty, Prisons, and Social Development.” On March 7, 2008, the organization presented a Human Rights report to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, drawing from “Dignity of the Individual” materials.

During 2010, CURE significantly contributed to various UN commissions. In February 2010, the organization submitted written intervention to the UN Commission on Social Development’s 48th meeting, including 15 key justice and prison reform recommendations distributed to country delegates. Cora Cypser, a veteran CURE member, presented verbal prison reform statements to UN delegates—notably, one of the few presentations followed by applause.

Pauline, Charlie, and longtime member Kathryn Rodriguez represented International CURE at April 2010’s 12th UN Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in Salvador, Brazil, attended by 3,000 representatives from 102 countries. Charlie reported on U.S. progress ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture.

CURE contributed to the 2010 UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) on U.S. Corrections. Charlie established 13 working groups comprising 3-6 experienced CURE members examining possible U.S. human rights violations across 13 key subjects. The committees identified violations of specific human rights document sections binding the U.S., recommending violations reduction strategies submitted to the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights office.