California spending billions to build new prisons

Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writer

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Lea Suzuki / The Chronicle

An inmate passes through a corridor of the medical center at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, where a $33.6 million, 64-bed medical center addition to the existing hospital will open next month.

At a dusty construction site in Vacaville adjacent to a prison yard, workers are putting the finishing touches on a 45,000-square-foot structure that will soon house dozens of California's most severely mentally ill offenders.

When the $33.6 million project at the California Medical Facility is completed this fall, prison psychologists and psychiatrists will have private offices to treat their patients, and inmates requiring inpatient care will have individual cells near a nurse's station, as required by law.

The building, which will include 64 cells, is one of 13 prison construction projects being funded by a $7.4 billion bond approved by the Legislature in 2007. It is all part of an effort by the state to comply with a court order to reduce overcrowding and improve health care in its prisons.

Even as the construction continues, however - and as the state continues to face pressure to reduce its prison population - there is debate over whether Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown should move forward with the projects.

Thirteen other states have seen their inmate populations drop and are working to close prisons - including Texas, which began shutting down a century-old lockup last week.

Some people think California should follow suit.

"It's such a failed opportunity if we just build more beds instead of getting smart about policies," said Emily Harris of Californians United for a Responsible Budget, a coalition working to reduce the state's prison population and spending. "We know in California that if we build them, we will fill them."

The state, she said, should "use this as an opportunity to make smart reforms that advocates have been pushing for decades, and that we know from recent polls voters support."

Changing needs
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office bolstered that argument last week when it released a report recommending that the state reconsider its construction program.

The report's author, Paul Golaszewski, said approximately 1,500 low-security beds proposed at two of the 13 construction sites may not be needed once the state starts sending more inmates to local jails this fall under the governor's realignment plan, and that all future projects should be carefully evaluated.

"We don't know for sure whether they will need these projects," he said. "We don't think they should be delivering more dorm beds. Especially with realignment, it doesn't make sense."

After its completion next month, the Vacaville center will house maximum-security mentally ill inmates who need an inpatient setting. It will have an office area for mental health workers, a dining hall and an exercise yard. Rooms for group therapy will be furnished with heavy, rubber chairs that are impossible to pick up or use as a weapon. There will also be areas for occupational therapy and a handful of rooms with restraints or padded walls. All 64 cells will be within 90 feet of a nurse's station, as required by law.

Court order
Prison officials say this and the other 12 projects are medical and mental health sites that are crucial to getting the state out from under the court order, which arose when advocates sued, claiming that shoddy medical and mental health treatment was violating inmates' rights to decent care and leading to the preventable deaths of up to 50 inmates a year.

A federal court agreed, placed medical care under the control of a federal receiver and ordered the state to reduce its prison population by nearly 34,000 inmates over the next two years.

The conundrum for prison officials is that the population reduction order is directly linked to the court's finding of inadequate medical care and mental health treatment. Prison officials argue that the construction projects under way will help the state comply with the courts.

Improving services
The Vacaville center, for example, won't do much to ease crowding in the main prison, which is about 25 percent over capacity. But the new center will free up treatment space and help state officials better deliver mental health services, according to Stirling Price, who runs the Department of Mental Health's psychiatric program at the prison.

Currently, Vacaville inmates attend group therapy in makeshift rooms, including old cafeterias, and mental health workers must share tiny, crowded offices for individual therapy sessions. The new housing unit will give psychologists and psychiatrists their own office space away from inmates.

Another three-story, $24 million treatment space is also being built at the same prison for mentally ill patients who can be treated in an outpatient setting.

In all, mentally ill patients make up about one-third of the Vacaville institution's population.

"The construction will allow us to provide services based on a specific need. Right now it tends to be based on where the inmate lives," said David Silbaugh, chief psychologist at the prison. "The idea is to have (inmates) at the top of their game when they go back into the community."

State officials said the projects under AB900, the prison construction and rehabilitation law, have been constantly readjusted to match new policies, including Brown's plan to begin sending low-level offenders to county jails starting Oct. 1. Several projects for lower-security inmate housing were dropped after it became apparent they were not needed.

"We carefully thought through the things we needed, knowing the fiscal challenges of the state," said Deborah Hysen, deputy director of planning, construction and management at the prison agency. "We wanted to know that what we needed, we would need for a very long time, so if there is any concern about us going slow, it might have to do with the fact that we want to be careful."

Steep price tag
The price tag of these medical and mental health sites has nevertheless drawn scrutiny. On average, taxpayers will shell out $315,000 per bed for the projects that are under way.

Nancy Kincaid, a spokeswoman for the federal receiver in charge of health care in prisons, said the investment is worth it. The projects, she said, will allow California to treat far more inmates behind prison walls at a much cheaper cost than transporting them to outside centers.

"The people going back to the counties ... are not the people that use the medical facilities generally," she said. "Eighty to 90 percent are used by inmates with long-term sentences."

Kincaid said outside medical care contracts are the state's largest single expense, costing about $480 million a year.

The debate is likely to continue as the state considers moving forward with a handful of other projects authorized under AB900. Those include expansions of local jails, high-security additions to existing prisons and the creation of re-entry centers in cities and counties around California.

State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who earlier this year called on Brown to rethink the AB900 projects, said he agrees with the Legislative Analyst's Office report calling for reassessments of individual projects, but feels the prison department has done a good job so far focusing on things that are necessary.

"We need to match the beds we have to the needs we have, which is not currently the case," he said. "But we cannot and will not build our way out of our prison problem."

Prison construction
AB900 was signed into law in May 2007, authorizing $7.4 billion in lease revenue bonds for the construction or expansion of prisons, jails and re-entry centers. Nearly half of that money, $3.5 billion, will be used to add new beds and treatment and programming space at existing prisons. Among the ongoing projects are:

-- California Medical Facility

Location: Vacaville

Details: 64-bed mental health center at existing hospital

Cost: $33.6 million, or $526,000 a bed

Estimated date of completion: September

-- California Institution for Women

Location: Chino

Details: 45-bed acute- and intermediate-care mental health center for female inmates

Cost: $33.7 million or $750,000 a bed

Estimated date of completion: December

-- California Health Care Facility

Location: Stockton

Details: 1.2 million-square-foot medical center with 1,722 beds for patient-inmates

Cost: $906 million, or $52,000 a bed

Estimated date of completion: July 2013

-- California Men's Colony

Location: San Luis Obispo

Details: 50-bed mental health crisis unit

Cost: $35.7 million or $715,000 per bed

Estimated date of completion: September 2012

-- California Medical Facility

Location: Vacaville

Details: Additional treatment and office space for mental health patients

Cost: $24.2 million; no beds

Estimated date of completion: February 2013

-- DeWitt-Nelson YCF Conversion

Location: Stockton

Details: Renovation of former youth lockup into 1,133-bed adult mental health treatment center

Cost: $188 million, or $16,500 a bed

Estimated date of completion: August 2013

-- Estrella

Location: Paso Robles

Details: Conversion of former youth lockup to 1,000-bed adult center aimed at inmates with medical needs.

Cost: $110 million or $11,000 a bed

Estimated date of completion: unknown

-- California State Prison, Sacramento, Enhanced Outpatient program

Location: Sacramento

Details: Treatment and office space for 192 inmates

Cost: $12.7 million, no beds

Estimated date of completion: November

-- Lancaster State Prison

Location: Lancaster

Details: Treatment and office space for mental health services for 150 inmates

Cost: $11.49 million, no beds

Estimated date of completion: July 2012

-- Central California Women's Facility

Location: Chowchilla

Details: Treatment and office space for inmates with mental health treatment needs

Cost: $17.7 million, no beds

Estimated date of completion: October 2013

-- Corcoran State Prison

Location: Corcoran (Kings County)

Details: 14,932-square-foot building for mental health treatment space for existing inmates

Cost: $16.5 million, no beds

Estimated date of completion: February 2013

-- Salinas Valley State Prison

Location: Soledad

Details: Treatment and office space for mental health treatment for existing inmates

Cost: $25.3 million, no beds

Estimated date of completion: July 2013

-- Northern California Re-entry Facility

Location: Stockton

Details: 500-bed re-entry center for inmates at the end of their sentence

Cost: $116.8 million or $23,000 a bed

Estimated date of completion: 2013

-- Additional projects funded by AB900

$700 million to improve health sites at six existing prisons

$2.6 billion for up to 10,000 beds at secure re-entry centers in cities and counties around the state. The centers are located in local communities where inmates can serve the last part of their sentences and receive job training, mental heath and substance-abuse counseling, housing placement and other help.

At least two high-security additions to existing prisons at an unknown cost.

$1.2 billion for expansion of local jails. Counties may apply for the money if they agree to host a re-entry center. Five counties have already signed on.

E-mail Marisa Lagos at mlagos@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/13/MNHN1KJ12V.DTL&ao=all#ixzz1V0yQe8tR

'Revolving door' of California prisons

 'Revolving door' of California prisons
The latest on California politics and government
June 9, 2011
 'Revolving door' of California prisons
California's prison system takes center stage this morning as two Senate committees hear from a public safety expert on national trends in cutting recidivism and prison costs.

Adam Gelb directs the Washington-based Pew Center on the States' Public Safety Performance Project, which aims to help states develop policies on sentencing and corrections.

He's also the author of "State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America's Prisons," a Pew report published in April that notes most inmates returned to prison in California are getting locked up on technical violations.

That hearing starts at 9 a.m. in the Capitol's Room 4203.
With one day left before the redistricting commission releases its draft maps, members of SEIU California are announcing a new election strategy this morning that they say will help break Sacramento's partisan gridlock.

The union's leader, David Kieffer, said yesterday in a talk with the Bee Capitol Bureau that he thinks Democrats can defeat conservative Republicans next year by taking advantage of the state's new "top-two" primary system.

Meanwhile, Sen. Leland Yee and others are still on alert, as the U.S. Supreme Court may rule this morning on the state's law banning the sale or rental of excessively violent video games to children.
The San Francisco Democrat carried Assembly Bill 1179, which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down in 2009 "as presumptively invalid content-based restriction on speech" violating the First Amendment. Gov. Jerry Brown appealed that decision back when he was attorney general.
If the court issues a ruling, Yee and others will hold a news conference at San Francisco's Hiram Johnson State Building.

VETERANS: Here are three names you don't usually see in the same sentence: Doris Matsui, Dan Lungren and Tom McClintock. The congressmembers are scheduled to attend a presser in which the U.S. Olympic Committee and the city of Sacramento's Department of Parks and Recreation announce a new sports initiative for veterans. The event starts at 10 a.m. at Samuel C. Pannell Community Center, 2450 Meadowview Road.

BUDGET: Next10 releases an update to its nonpartisan California Budget Challenge with an interactive budget workshop at Commonwealth Club in San Francisco from 10 a.m. to noon. Listed speakers include John Myers of KQED Public Radio, Dan Schnur of the University of Southern California's Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics, Jim Mayer of California Forward, and F. Noel Perry of Next10.

CRIME: Democratic Assemblyman Roger Dickinson of Sacramento and Assemblywoman Alyson Huber of El Dorado Hills join community leaders on the Capitol's west steps at 2 p.m. to highlight the case of Seth Parker, who says two men shouted gay slurs at him before badly beating him in the parking lot of an Elk Grove bowling alley Sunday.

TOUR: Sen. Joel Anderson, R-Alpine, joins state Republican Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro and others in the south state for another of the state party's "California Speaks Out" town halls. The event, co-sponsored by KCBQ-AM, starts at 7 p.m. at Hawthorne CAT Power Systems, 8050 Othello Ave., San Diego.

PHOTO CREDIT: Shen Buechler, an inmate at Folsom State Prison, works on measuring an engine Wednesday, February 24, 2010, at the prison's auto mechanic's class.

Hector Amezcua / Sacramento Bee

Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/06/am-alert-california-prisons-adam-gelb.html#ixzz1OvpDE3sZ

Is CA’s 3-Strikes Good or Bad Law? State & Local Officials Contemplate the Question

WitnessLA.com » Blog Archive » Is CA’s 3-Strikes Good or Bad Law? State & Local Officials Contemplate the Question

May 13th, 2011 by Celeste Fremon

Last week two dozen California reporters—myself included—met with state and local officials and criminal justice experts on the USC campus to talk about California’s Three Strikes law. The idea of the symposium was to encourage more informed and nuanced reporting on criminal justice issues in general, and the Three Strikes law in particular.

The event was sponsored by New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice’s Center on Media, Crime and Justice and conceived by Stephen Handelman, the Center’s director, and my pal Joe Domanick, who is the center’s associate director and an expert on the Three Strikes law, since he wrote the most authoritative book on the topic.

For two full days straight, there were panels and Q & A sessions with such people as Matthew Cate, the head of the California Department of Corrections, LA District Attorney, Steve Cooley, Civil Rights lawyer Connie Rice, San Francisco DA, George Gascon, LA’s new head Public Defender Ron Brown, former state senators Tom Hayden and Gloria Romero, plus a pile of academics and advocates from both ends of the political spectrum. There were also two men who had been put away for life by the law, but who had managed to get their cases reconsidered.

Unlike with most such gatherings, many of the officials and experts who came to be on panels, stayed on to become part of the small intense audience.

In broad strokes, the discussion focused on what good or harm the law had done, and what ought to be done about it now. Should it be left as is? Modified? Or should it be done away with?

Most who came seemed eager to share what they knew and the opinions among those who have dealt the most closely with the law were often surprising.

But, before we get to that, a little history on the law itself:
MORE:WitnessLA.com » Blog Archive » Is CA’s 3-Strikes Good or Bad Law? State & Local Officials Contemplate the Question

Guarding Against Reform

Guarding Against Reform « Zócalo Public Square

CA's Corrections Officers Need to Let Some of Their Charges Go

by Joshua Page

California’s prisons provide an apt metaphor for the state’s broken politics. Almost everyone knows the $10 billion correctional system is unsustainable and must be cut, and yet the issue is so controlled by vested interests that nothing much changes. It’s a case study in how political disengagement – the “why bother” syndrome that afflicts Californians when confronted with any number of daunting issues – tends to carry the day.

Contracting the prison population requires shortening prison and parole terms, increasing alternatives to imprisonment, and reserving costly prison beds for the most serious offenders. Sophisticated research and the recent experiences of other states (like New York, which decreased its prison population by 20 percent) show that these measures can be implemented without jeopardizing public safety.

The time is ripe to downsize California’s correctional system. For starters, the state is over $26 billion in debt – it simply can’t afford its prison system. Moreover, federal judges have ruled that the Golden State must cut about 40,000 inmates from its overcrowded prisons. Public opinion polls indicate that Californians are tiring of their state’s über-tough approach to crime and drug addiction. So who stands in the way of the mighty alliance of fiscal necessity, the federal bench and public opinion?

Enter the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, known as CCPOA. Established in 1982, this prison officers’ union became an influential political player in the 1990s. Now, alongside crime victims’ groups it helped create and continues to fund, the CCPOA greatly influences the fate of major penal policy proposals. The union has defeated critical sentencing reform initiatives that might shrink California’s bloated correctional system.

In 2004, the CCPOA organized and helped finance the opposition to Proposition 66, which would have softened the edges of the state’s extremely sharp “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law. In 2008, it bankrolled the successful effort to defeat Proposition 5, a wide-ranging initiative meant to reduce the number of drug offenders behind bars. Most recently, the union helped torpedo a legislative initiative to establish an independent commission with the authority to change sentencing laws. When it comes to serious sentencing reform, the CCPOA and its allies remain major obstacles.

As odd as it might seem for prison officers to play a decisive role in shaping the criminal justice system of a state of some 35 million people, policymakers have no choice but to deal with the CCPOA. But they should do so in a more adept manner.

First, policymakers should address the union’s legitimate concerns. Prison officers understandably worry that downsizing the correctional system will put them out of work. Thanks largely to their effective union, these officers have solid, middle-class jobs with good pay, good benefits, and good retirement packages. California officers make between $45,000 and $73,000 a year before overtime and other incentives. As the manufacturing sector declines, “prison officer” is one of the few remaining occupations providing upward social mobility for people who lack advanced degrees. This is especially true in the rural areas in which many prisons are located. Officers and their families, then, are justified in thinking that major reforms might close one of the few remaining paths they have into the middle class.

Policymakers must make good faith efforts to protect these workers as they reshape the correctional system. Prison workforces should be decreased by natural attrition whenever possible; positions should be shed through retirement or voluntary termination. Because the prisons are currently understaffed, the closing of some facilities needn’t translate into widespread layoffs. The state might set up retraining programs to help officers find new work within or outside of the prison system. The CCPOA would be much more likely to support reform measures if it could protect its members’ jobs along the way, or at least be persuaded that its worst-case fears are unfounded.

Securing jobs won’t be enough. Another important point to consider is that the union’s support for laws like “Three Strikes” is not just about gaining members and job security. It’s also ideological. Union leaders and many members believe in these policies. Therefore, policymakers (particularly the governor) must negotiate aggressively but productively, not only on wages and benefits, but also on substantive issues. California’s leaders should make implicit or explicit deals, using wages, benefits, and work-related rules and practices as bargaining chips with the CCPOA during collective bargaining. Unless the union agrees not to oppose major sentencing and prison reforms (and that includes not financing its allied organizations’ efforts to quash the reforms), the state should not support the union’s contract or legislative proposals.

If the CCPOA refrains from opposing sentencing reforms, it should be rewarded with fair contracts that further professionalize prison officer work, improve wages and benefits, and strengthen job security. Put simply, there should be incentives for cooperation—not just disincentives for non-cooperation.

Evidently, the Brown administration used this strategy in its recent negotiations with the CCPOA. As has been widely reported, the governor and the union have reached a tentative contract agreement. Republican legislators and newspaper editorial boards have argued that this deal will not save enough money or return enough workplace control to management – some have even called it a “sweetheart deal.” In response to the criticism, Brown has claimed that he did not seek more drastic concessions from the union, at least in part, because the CCPOA did not actively oppose his criminal justice realignment plan to make counties (rather than the state) responsible for incarcerating low-level offenders and supervising most parolees. (The policy will not go into effect unless Brown gets his tax measures approved.) If implemented, the plan will decrease the number of prison officers and parole agents – hence, it’s not surprising that union leaders are taking heat for not opposing the plan. Nevertheless, the CCPOA finally has a contract, and, given the current economic environment, budget shortfalls, and rampant anti-union sentiment, it’s a solid one.

In a perfect world, taxpayers wouldn’t need to offer carrots to a public employee union to reform a state’s criminal justice system. But California politics, to put it mildly, is not quite a perfect world, and unless campaign financing and plenty of other structural matters are radically altered, the governor must get the CCPOA’s buy-in to downsize prisons.

Brown’s realignment proposal is projected to reduce the state prison population by upwards of 40,000. Although it would alleviate overcrowding and satisfy the federal courts, it would not necessarily shrink the overall correctional population (instead it would simply shift state prisoners to the counties). Truly shrinking the system still requires sentencing reform. Neither Brown nor the legislature has shown any willingness to shorten prison sentences or increase alternatives to imprisonment, but if they do take up serious sentencing reform, they will again have to deal with the CCPOA and its allies. By addressing union members’ fears, policymakers can soften their resistance. And while a smaller prison system will eventually lead to fewer officers (and union members), it will also benefit those who continue to toil on the tiers and on the yards.

Contracting the penal population will decrease tension, violence, and chaos behind the walls, making the prison beat less “tough” for officers and prisoners alike. Despite the zero-sum calculations of so many, cutting corrections and helping officers are necessary and compatible goals.

Joshua Page is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota. He is the author of The Toughest Beat: Politics, Punishment, and the Prison Officers Union in California (Oxford University Press, 2011).

*Photo courtesy of Dana Gonzales.

Mom Wonders: Is My Son’s Arrest A Good Thing?

Coerced Treatment For Drug Addiction

by recoveryhelpdesk on May 1, 2011 ·

Will your son’s arrest ultimately turn out to be a good thing? Not likely.

I certainly understand how a mother could feel a sense of relief when her son is arrested. Even her son may feel a certain sense of relief.

Finally something might actually derail the runaway train. But what about the train wreck that follows?

For the last 10 years, I’ve run an incarceration-prevention program for people living with opiate dependence. Our goal is to help people find a path to recovery that does not pass through the jailhouse door.

Not only is it possible to find a path to recovery that does not pass through the jailhouse door, but passing through the jailhouse door reduces your chances of long term recovery success.

Sure, arrest and the threat of incarceration can result in a new focus on the need for change, and provide motivation for change. But this particular path to focus and motivation risks some devastating side effects.

There are other ways to elicit focus on the need for change and build motivation for change. Ways that are more effective over the long term and less harmful.

I fear that as a society we are too ready to use the cudgel of coerced treatment. We’ve talked ourselves into believing that incarceration is a therapeutic response to addiction. But the many-forked path through the criminal justice system often leads every which way but stable, long-term recovery.

I think we would be smart to be wary of a system of coerced treatment for addiction through the threat of incarceration –just as we would be wary of a system of coerced treatment for any other health issue with a behavioral component such as obesity, smoking, diabetes or heart disease.

I think we should recognize and be wary of the “enablers” of this system:

1. Desperate parents, families and communities;

2. Lazy and unskilled treatment providers who bottom feed on coerced treatment;

3. Politicians who get more political mileage out of putting money into the criminal justice system instead of the drug treatment system; and

4. Unjustified stigma against drug users that grants social permission to incarcerate rather than provide effective treatment.

I feel no sense of relief when a client is arrested. I recognize that the job of helping that person build a safe and sustainable recovery just got a lot harder.

“I’m never coming back here again.”

“I’m never going to use again.”

“Getting arrested saved my life, if I wasn’t here I’d be dead by now.”

I hear these statements often from clients I visit in jail. I recognize the sincerity behind the statements. After many years of experience, I also recognize that these kinds of sincere statements are often not only not actually accurate, but almost the opposite of the reality of the situation.

Once in jail, more likely to be back in jail again.

Once in jail, less likely to be able to achieve the conditions of stability necessary to achieve long term recovery.

Incarceration is more likely to put a life at risk. Getting effective treatment would have been more likely to save a life.

Getting sucked into the criminal justice system most often delays recovery, complicates recovery and destabilizes recovery. Most people don’t get treatment in jail, and don’t get linked to treatment after release from jail. Instead, statistics show that a large percentage of fatal overdoses happen right after release from incarceration.

There is a basic human impulse to try to make sense of bad experiences by finding the good that might give the experience a positive meaning. We do this with war, serious illness, and even the tragic death of a loved one. It’s a healthy coping mechanism.

It’s healthy to focus on the good. It’s healthy to take the bad things that happen to us and weave them into our personal narratives in way that gives them positive and hopeful meaning. But as a society, it’s more healthy to recognize that bad things are bad.

Incarceration as a solution to addiction is BAD.

The Failed Drug War Has Created a Human Rights Nightmare -- How Can This Happen in Our Country and Go Virtually Undiscussed?

If we fail to commit ourselves to ending mass incarceration, future generations will judge us harshly.

So much about our racial reality today is little more than a mirage. The promised land of racial equality wavers, quivers just out of our reach in the barren desert of our new, "colorblind" political landscape. It looks so good from a distance: Barack Obama, our nation's first black president, standing in the Rose Garden behind a podium looking handsome, dignified, and in charge. Flip the channel and there's Michelle Obama, a brown-skinned woman, digging a garden in the backyard of the White House -- not as a servant or a maid -- but as the first lady, schooling the nation on better health and the need to be good stewards of our planet. Flip the channel again and there's the whole Obama family exiting Air Force One, waving to the crowd, descending the flight of stairs -- a gorgeous black family living in the White House, ruling America, cheered by the world.
More....
By Michelle Alexander /Alternet / April 28, 2011

The Root: We Can't Afford To Not Fix Justice System

Statistics released by the U.S. Bureau of Justice and analyzed by Ohio State law professor Michelle Alexander show that, as of 2008, more African American men are in jail today than were slaves in 1850.

Benjamin Todd Jealous is president and CEO of the NAACP.

Lateefah Simon is executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area.

Reforming the nation's criminal-justice system is one of the most urgent civil rights issues of our time. One shocking fact illustrates why: More African-American men are entangled in the criminal-justice system today than were enslaved in 1850.

How did we get here? The rise in America's penchant for punishment can be traced as far back as the 1964 presidential campaigns of Barry Goldwater and George Wallace, each of whom made law and order a defining plank of his platform.

President Richard Nixon continued the trend, framing Democrats as "soft on crime" and pushing for tough law-enforcement policies in opposition to President Johnson's credo of tackling crime through a "war on poverty." "Doubling the conviction rate in this country would do more to cure crime in America than quadrupling the funds for [Hubert] Humphrey's war on poverty," Nixon told voters.
more....http://www.npr.org/2011/04/07/135203031/the-root-we-cant-afford-to-not-fix-justice-system
..Benjamin Todd Jealous and Lateefah Simon, NPR

NAACP Report Calls Shift in Funding Toward Prisons ‘Alarming’

On Thursday, the NAACP released a report called Misplaced Priorities that examines America’s escalating prison spending and its impact on state budgets, state educational systems, the stability of our inner city communities, and the well being of our children.

To amplify its point, the report profiled six cities: New York, Houston, Indianapolis, Jackson, MS, Philadelphia and, of course, Los Angeles.

Here are a few of the other facts about LA that are in the report:

* 50 percent of the people who were in prison in California, and are now on parole in Los Angeles live in zip codes that are home to only 18 percent of the city’s adults.

* This means that more than a billion taxpayer dollars are spent every year to incarcerate people from Los Angeles neighborhoods where less than 20 percent of Los Angeles residents live.

* In Los Angeles, 69 of the 90 (67 percent) low performing schools are in neighborhoods with the highest incarceration rates.

* By contrast, 59 of the city’s 86 high performing schools (68 percent) are in neighborhoods with the lowest incarceration rates.

* During the last two decades, as the criminal justice system came to assume a larger proportion of state discretionary dollars, state spending on prisons grew at six times the rate of state spending on higher education. This is particularly true in California.
from Celeste Fremon, Witness LA

Petitions by Change.org|Start a Petition »

Hard Times after Hard Time for the Formerly Incarcerated

Once the cell door slams shut, a life is severed. For the individual, a prison sentence imposes a "social death" in the form of isolation from family, social networks, and the economy. Less visible is the collective punishment that prison metes out against the families on the outside, broken up by the state and shattered by economic crisis.

more...Hard Times after Hard Time for the the Formerly Incarcerated

Four Corners and Nowhere to Turn - San Diego Magazine - September 2010 - San Diego, California

Ex-offender programs and substance-abuse treatment faccilities — halfway houses — help provide the transition into society that keeps recently released prisoners from reverting to previous criminal behavior. But state budget cuts threaten their continued existence.

State agrees to discuss prison lockdowns with rights group

By Michael Montgomery, California Watch -- Facing a threatened legal battle over alleged racial discrimination, California prison officials have agreed to meet with the Prison Law Office over the department’s controversial use of lockdowns on general population inmates. In a July 17 letter to the secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Matt Cate, the Prison Law Office threatened to sue the department over lockdowns that singled out entire races for punishment – sometimes for months. "The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is working with the Prison Law Office on the issue they identified," CDCR spokesperson Terry Thornton said..
READ More....

Are Prisons Really Dangerous Places to Work?

Are Prisons Really Dangerous Places to Work?

by Stan Moody

June 21, 2010 @ 01:17PM PT
Topics: Prison Reform

What do you think the most dangerous job in America is? If you answered 'being a prison guard,' you'd be wrong. Though the corrections industry has sold the public on the danger of being a prison guard, the truth is that prisons are crushingly boring places.

That's because they're designed to be efficient, unchanging systems that maintain order while both staff and prisoners do their time. (That might explain prison guards' high rate of addiction and divorce.)

I should know — until recently, I worked as a chaplain in a Maine prison.

During a recent interview, I was asked if I thought the spate of deaths within Maine's solitary prison cells (three within the past year) would prompt future reforms. My answer was a categorical “No.” Unfortunately, the public has already spoken. Mental hospitals have largely been closed, leaving psychiatric wards, jails and prisons as the remaining option for many in need. Meanwhile, thanks to urban renewal, those without mental, financial or family resources to defend themselves have been rendered disposable.

Read More;

I AM THE DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE

Justice Advocates to Governor: Cut Waste, Not Effective Programs, from Bloated Corrections Budget

For Immediate Release: May 13, 2010
(http://tinyurl.com/29fc5ar)

SAN FRANCISCO—As spending on California’s massive prison system continues unabated, Governor Schwarzenegger’s office has declared that the revised budget to be released tomorrow will propose “absolutely terrible cuts.” The American Civil Liberties Union, Drug Policy Alliance and Ella Baker Center for Human Rights call on the Governor to choose three effective, budget-saving reforms over wasteful corrections spending.

Californians are already living with over-crowded classrooms, higher fees for college, bare bones health care, and fewer public services. Meanwhile, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) overspent its budget again – by nearly $500 million so far. In addition, a recent investigation by the Sacramento Bee brought to light disturbing allegations of abuse, racial bias and misconduct by prison guards, raising more questions about CDCR’s commitment to rehabilitation and stewardship of public funds.

So that public safety dollars are used wisely to protect California communities, we recommend the following common-sense, budget-saving reforms:

•Reserve prison for serious offenses: Two-thirds of California inmates are in prison for non-violent, property or drug offenses. Prison cells are expensive and should be reserved for people who commit serious crimes. Those convicted of petty drug and property crimes should be dealt with at the local level. Three changes can achieve this: (1) people found in possession of small amounts of drugs should not be sent to prison; (2) certain property crimes that can be charged as either a felony or misdemeanor should be treated as misdemeanors only; and (3) the dollar threshold defining when property theft is a felony should be adjusted based on inflation. These changes have been endorsed by the Governor, the CDCR and the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and would save $292 million annually.


•Ensure fair sentencing and rehabilitation for youth: Youth in California serve the longest average sentences in the nation. Currently, the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) has the ability to keep youth locked up longer by giving them "time adds" based on behavior. Time adds account for one third of all custody time in DJJ. Assembly Member Nancy Skinner's bill, AB 999, would eliminate time adds and establish an incentive program in which young people can earn credits for program participation. AB 999 would cut state costs by over $130 million and would lead to further facility closures by reducing the number of young people in state custody.

•Restore rehabilitation programs at the state and local level: Last year, the CDCR cut $260 million from rehabilitation and treatment programs in prison. This year, the Legislature has threatened to eliminate all funding for Prop 36 drug treatment programs. These cuts will only lead to more incarceration. Instead, the Legislature should invest $30 million in available federal Byrne Grants –funds available for drug treatment – into Prop 36 programs. Criminal justice experts have all agreed: real, effective rehabilitation for non-violent drug and property offenders reduces crime and ultimately reduces corrections spending. According to UCLA research, every dollar invested in Prop 36 cuts state costs by $2 to $4 – primarily in incarceration costs.

All Californians should demand a just budget: Sacramento must end the waste in corrections, ensure that public safety dollars are used effectively, and protect all Californian communities by preserving funding for education, rehabilitation, and core social services.

CONTACTS:
Natasha Minsker, ACLU of Northern California, 415-621-2493
Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, Drug Policy Alliance, 213-291-4190
Kris Lev-Twombly, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, 510-428-3939

05.04.2010 - Downsizing the prison-industrial complex

California's obsession with incarceration — at $50K a year per adult, $250K per juvenile — is unsustainable, says criminologist Barry Krisberg

By Cathy Cockrell, NewsCenter | 04 May 2010

BERKELEY — Barry Krisberg joined Berkeley Law's Center for Criminal Justice in January as a distinguished senior fellow and lecturer-in-residence. A well-known researcher and advocate for juvenile-justice reform, he served as president of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency for more than 25 years (1983-2009). Krisberg has been tapped by state governments and the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate and monitor aspects of the correctional system. He led the 2003 investigation in California of what is now the Division of Juvenile Justice. After the panel issued a devastating report, Krisberg was asked to help monitor state compliance with the resulting consent decree, a role he continues to play today.
More.....
05.04.2010 - Downsizing the prison-industrial complex

The Drug War: A War on Women and Their Families | | AlterNet

The Drug War: A War on Women and Their Families AlterNet
Since 1977, the rate of female imprisonment has increased by nearly 800% and is still rising -- much of it attributable to the war on drugs.
April 5, 2010

The newest victims of the war on drugs are women and if Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske was sincere when he said that the war on drugs is not a war on the people of this country then it is time to evaluate how our policies affect the women of this country. Since 1977, the rate of female imprisonment has increased by nearly 800% and is still rising.

DA tries to seize inmate drug money

Monday, April 5, 2010

 I have three thoughts.. (notwithstanding the "forfeiture" discussion..)

 *YEARS to get a grip on the fact that an inmate with $25,000 on his books is odd?

*NO pending criminal cases? WOW, this guy was either invisible or guards are turning their heads.
*Hello! The drug trade in prison is big business....

  DA tries to seize inmate drug money

 By Nick Grube, Daily Triplicate -- The Del Norte County District Attorney’s Office recently began asset forfeiture proceedings against a high-ranking Mexican Mafia gang member who is currently being housed inside Pelican Bay State Prison’s Security Housing Unit. According to court records, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation seized more than $26,000 held in inmate Danny Roman’s prison trust account after an investigation determined he allegedly received much of the money as a result of gang and drug activity.

 

Prison report: The Early Release Scare

By Just A Guy
Editors note: Just A Guy was recently released after serving a sentence in a California state prison. He continues to comment on law-enforcement and public-safety issues.

Here we continue with the anti-release rhetoric, saying that all the people are “dangerous criminals” and the releases will cause a spike in crime.

Here’s Los Angeles Police Protection League President Paul M. Weber:

“We can expect crime to go up as a result of this massive release, considering California has the highest recidivism rate in the nation, with seven out of ten parolees reoffending then returning to the prison system.”

Of course you can expect an increase in crime -- most of the people sent to county jails and prisons (especially county jails) have been given absolutely no rehabilitative programs. What is the real reason that seven out of 10 parolees return to jail, though? Is it from new crimes or parole violations? Why does California have the highest recidivism rate?
Maybe it’s because, for a long time now, parolees have been violated and sent back to prison for “technical violations” like leaving the county without permission or having contact with their significant other when they weren’t supposed to.

While it is certainly each individual’s responsibility to abide by the rules of parole, some of the things that parolees get violated for the first time are overwhelmingly ridiculous. Personally, I believe that parole should be eradicated except for truly violent offenders; parole is really a joke anyway, and it has never stopped someone that has the intention of committing new crimes from doing so. You think some parolee is going tell his/her parole officer, “I am going to go use drugs today and burglarize someone.” And, do you think all the cops know every parolee on their beat now? Give me a break.

Let’s talk about parole anyway. What is it? Really, it’s just an extension of your sentence. If you are sentenced to 4 years in prison for possession of drugs (or anything else), it’s really a seven year sentence. You could do all four years, be released and still have three years of parole and if you get violated and sent back you can wind up doing, on the installment plan, 3 more years in prison/jail.

Now, I don’t see parole as particularly difficult (just annoying) if you are really trying to get your shit together, but most people that are released on parole get out with significantly less than they went in with -- i.e. no to live, no job, and a worse attitude. Then, they are released to 10% unemployment, have no real job training or life skills, have been tainted by the California Penal System and are ripe to come back. What difference does it make if they get out now or later? They’re all getting out eventually.

When are you Californians going to get tired of spending more on prisons than your kid’s higher education? But this is the progressive state that voted against gay marriage…

Finally, why don’t you seriously consider amending three strikes? There are people that were sentenced to 25 to life for possession of miniscule amounts of drugs and their previous offenses were many, years prior. Guys sentenced to life for stealing a pizza or a bike; that’s a reality.

And you want to reduce prison spending? Legalize drugs. Period.

By Tim Redmond: January 20, 2010 01:47 PM

An Opportunity To Reform The Criminal Justice System

Sen. James Webb's bill could help make the case for treating and rehabilitating nonviolent offenders

By Harry K. Wexler

January 20, 2010

In its Jan. 17 editorial, “A poor prison plan for California” and several other articles, The Times has detailed some of the long-standing problems in the American criminal justice system. As a member of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's prison reform strike team in 2007 and '08, I had a firsthand look at how the system is rife with inequities and in many ways dysfunctional.

Most experts would agree that the system generally fails on half its mission -- rehabilitating offenders -- and is only partially successful in the other half of preserving public safety. I say partially successful because very few inmates escape but far too many (about 50% to 75%) wind up back behind bars after their release.

These issues have been reported on many times in the media, yet in recent years there hasn't been any comprehensive response at the federal level. A proposal by Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) could bring forth that response, however. The bill (S 714) would authorize a national criminal justice commission to review system dysfunctions, document what works and make recommendations for reform. The proposed commission is a historic opportunity that should not be missed.

The two most critical problems include the incarceration of nonviolent offenders -- primarily drug abusers (many with associated mental health disorders) -- and the lack of meaningful rehabilitation, which contributes to very high recidivism rates. Basically, we are endangering public safety by imprisoning many nonviolent individuals -- who would be better served at lower cost in the community -- while limiting space for violent criminals who should be incarcerated.

Despite the aforementioned challenges, substantial progress has been made. The National Institute on Drug Abuse has been especially active in supporting research, producing a body of solidly replicated findings about drug treatment within the criminal justice system. The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment has supported many effective interventions.

Most professionals in the field agree that, based on available research, workable solutions are available. For example, researchers have demonstrated that a well-designed prison program with aftercare can reduce recidivism by about 50% up to five years after release. Other research has shown that diversion of nonviolent first-time offenders can be highly effective in reducing crime and substance abuse, and that very few first-time offenders who are initially diverted then go on to prison. As we all know, prison often teaches minor offenders who could have been diverted to become chronic recidivists.

Thus, a good case can be made for reconsidering who goes to prison and for providing effective rehabilitation to those who do.

The Senate bill identifies a number of problems that need to be addressed by the commission. Consider the following data cited by the legislation:

* The United States has the highest reported incarceration rate in the world.

* Minorities make up a disproportionately large share of prison populations.

* There are 7.3 million Americans incarcerated or on probation or parole, equal to one in every 31 adults, an increase of 290% since 1980.

* On average, two out of every three released prisoners will be rearrested, and one in two will return to prison within three years of release.

* Corrections expenditures compete with and diminish funding for education, public health, public safety, parks and recreation, and programs specifically designed to reduce the prison population.

* Despite high incarceration rates for drug-related offenses, illicit drugs remain consistently available.

* Treating addiction will significantly help decrease demand.

* Drug offenders in prisons and jails have increased 1,200% since 1980, and a significant percentage of these offenders have no history of violence or high-level drug selling activity.

* Prisons and jails nationwide have become holding facilities for the mentally ill, about 73% of whom suffer from a substance-abuse disorder.

The commission could address these issues head-on. Its review of the criminal justice system and relevant research would include looking at how other Western countries handle crime, punishment and rehabilitation. The commission would be funded for 18 months and be responsible for producing detailed findings, conclusions and recommendations to Congress and the president.

At this juncture there are many reasons to believe that we can make reform work instead of continuing to incarcerate nonviolent offenders. Unless we stop our overreliance on severe laws and fundamentally reform the system, we risk sacrificing our educational system and other important social institutions to fund the continual expansion of our prisons.

Harry K. Wexler has been researching substance-abuse treatment and policy for four decades and has directed projects that helped establish prison treatment programs in 20 states.

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times