2011 Peace and Justice Summit

10/26/11 - Long Beach, CA

This year's Peace and Justice Summit, held at the Long Beach Convention Center, was a major success. With speakers from around the nation, the summit focused on several issue subjects including alternatives to incarceration & criminalization on drug usage, disparities in mental services, the welfare ban, education, housing and community resources, employment discrimination, and "ban the box."

Kim Carter, from Time for Change Foundation, gave a presentation titled, "The Disease of Incarceration," which was received with praise from the audience.

The event was met with several influential community members on the panel, including Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, Vice Mayor of the City of Long Beach Suja Lowenthal, Mayor Jim Dear of the City of Carson, and City of Long Beach Councilman Dee Andrews.

Kim Carter's article, "When Main Street Occupies Wall Street," featured in the Huffington Post

 The recent series of organized protests that started in New York City and/or Canada, known as Occupy Wall Street, are a testament to the changing social environment in our nation. While necessary and important, these protests are on the heels of those who have been experiencing the effects of social injustices, corporate greed, and corrupt politics for many years. The squeeze on the middle class has amplified this effort and picked up a new momentum towards the goal of equality and justice.

Historically, the lack of this type of cross-cultural, socio-economic and intergenerational demonstration may have stemmed from the fact that the middle class had been in a comfort zone. They had access to good-paying jobs, healthcare benefits, retirement and homeownership. And while minority and under-class groups of society were suffering, the middle class did not rally, and was not actively engaged in their fight for social and economic justice. What Occupy Wall Street shows us is that the middle class has been attacked, robbed of their ideal existence and experiencing a revolt much like that of the civil rights era. Obviously, including the underclass by name (99%) lends credence to the fact that we are all in the same boat when it comes to fighting against corporate greed.

Some would argue, it's about time! But what event or series thereof had to happen? Let's see, could it be the scandal with Enron, Halliburton, or the Weapons of Mass Destruction hallucination? Oh, maybe it was the housing derivatives, the bank bailouts, Madoff taking off with people's retirement funds. Most recently however, we've seen the stock market crash and the housing market bubble burst, which has fundamentally changed the socio-economic landscape of our nation.

For too long there has been corruption and greed in our country. The population of those affected has now reached and surfaced to the middle class. It would appear as if Martin Niemoeller's quote, "The Failure to Speak Up Against the Nazis," rings true even in our day:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- 
Because I was not a Socialist.

"Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -- 
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- 
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me."

Human nature has the tendency to only react to a situation when its effects are experienced on a personal level. We need to stay together!

The Facts on SB 1266, Alternative Custody For Offenders

Senator Carol Liu

Principal Co-Author Assemblymember Lowenthal

Co-authors Senators Leno, Hancock, Negrete McLeod, and Pavley, and Assemblymembers Beall, Saldaña, Evans, Skinner, and Yamada

Alternative Custody for Female Offenders

The Problem
While over half of the men in prison were incarcerated for violent crimes, just 30% of women were convicted of violence. In fact, female inmates are more likely to be victims of violent crimes than to be the perpetrators. Four in 10 were physically or sexually abused before the age of 18 (LHC, 2004). Given this, it is not surprising that over two-thirds of women are classified as low risk (Level I or II) by the prison classification system (LHC, 2004).

However, women often are held in more secure environments than their custody classifications would warrant. Approximately 4,500 low-level women offenders who are currently incarcerated could be eligible for placement in secure, community-based programs without risking community safety (National Council on Crime and delinquency (NCCD), 2006). 

Background
Incarcerated women are not the only individuals negatively impacted by incarceration; families and communities have been devastated by women’s imprisonment. Approximately, 67% of incarcerated women are mothers (CRB, 2000) and many of them are single parents. NCCD estimates that in 2005 approximately 19,000 children had mothers who were incarcerated in California’s state facilities. Most of California’s incarcerated mothers are the primary caregivers of dependent children and hope to return home to their children. While the vast majority of children of incarcerated men continue to live with their mothers, children of incarcerated women are more likely to end up living with other relatives or in foster care (Powell & Nolan, 2003).

Visitation policies and the distance to prisons make it difficult for children to visit. Seventy-nine percent of incarcerated mothers in California never receive a visit during their incarceration (Powell & Nolan, 2003). Separating mothers from children has a substantial impact on their futures. Children of inmates are much more likely than their peers to become incarcerated. Research suggests that mothers who are able to maintain a relationship with their children are less likely to return to prison (WPA, 2009). To break the cycle of incarceration, California must adopt policies that facilitate parenting and family reunification.

Solution 
This bill authorizes the Secretary of CDCR to assign alternative custody arrangements to individuals on a voluntary basis that meet the following criteria:

§  No current or prior convictions of a violent, serious  or sex crime;

§  Determined by an assessment to be low risk; and

§  Women, pregnant inmates, and primary caregivers of dependent children.

Alternative Custody includes:

§  Confinement to a residential home.

§  Confinement to a residential drug or treatment program.

§  Confinement to a transitional care facility.

§  Use of electronic monitoring, GPS, or other supervising devices. 

Benefits
§  Lowers recidivism rates

§  Encourages community and family involvement

§  Fewer children in Child Welfare System

§  Reduces likelihood that inmate’s children will embark on a life of crime

Support
Chief Probation Officers, Little Hoover Commission, Fathers & Families, Commission on the Status of Women, Planned Parenthood, Crossroads Inc., Catholic Conference, Inc., CA Public Defenders, LA Dependency Lawyers, Friends Committee, Friends Outside, Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Drug Policy Alliance, Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety, CA Coalition for Women Prisoners, & Dawn Davison (former warden of CIW).

Opposition
Crime Victims United, CA District Attorneys Association

America Wants To Work Rally Today at 5PM

Nurses and Community Leaders Rally Against Prime Healthcare’s Prioritizing Profits Over Patient Care andGood, Local Jobs
San Dimas, CA – TODAY at 5PM, nurses, other workers and community leaders will rally to call on Prime Healthcare Inc. to reform its illegal and irresponsible business practices.


WHEN: Monday, October 17, 2011, 5:00 pm

WHAT: “America Wants to Work” Rally for Good, Local Jobs


WHERE: Briggs Park, across from San Dimas Community Hospital


1350 W. Covina Blvd., San Dimas, CA 91773



Governor Brown Signs SB 202! (Making the Initiative Process more Democratic)

Dearest Friends and Allies,


Great news – Governor Jerry Brown just signed SB 202, legislation that will make the initiative process more democratic and help ensure that the budget reflects our state’s priorities.


We can’t thank you enough for speaking up in support of this important legislation. Your advocacy made all the difference for the millions of people who are already struggling to make ends meet. You helped to empower our state’s voters and protect Californians from further needless budget cuts.


With this new law initiatives will now be placed on the ballot of the November general election, a time of greater voter turnout. This will allow great participation and engagement on far-reaching decisions that affect our families, schools, essential public program, and businesses.


This law will also wisely postpone a vote on the creation of a “rainy day” fund in California, a proposal that is unrealistic at a time when we are dealing with a wall of debt and our public programs are facing devastating cuts. We can’t afford to further shackle our state’s ability to balance our priorities.


If you have a moment, tweet your thanks to the Governor for signing SB 202. We suggest:


@JerryBrownGov thx for signing SB 202! We stand w/ you to empower CA voters, postpone the spending cap. #cabudget


Again, thank you for your help in bringing SB 202 across the finish line. Together, we can accomplish great change.

Curb's Realignment Report Card!

CURB has reviewed the realignment plans of thirteen key counties in California. We selected the following counties because they imprison the largest number of people in our state, send the largest share of people to state prison or are counties within which the majority of CURB members live and work.

CURB looked at the balance between community-based alternatives and plans to expand jail capacity. Like many other Californians, CURB believes that simply shifting people from State prison to County jail is a false solution to our prison and budget crisis. Realignment can most safely and effectively be implemented by using alternative sentencing and community-based reentry services instead of costly and ineffective jail expansion. Realignment should not be used as an excuse to expand policing, probation or jails. Realignment should not push forward AB 900, the largest prison construction scheme in human history. AB 900 authorized $7.4 billion in lease revenue bonds for the construction or expansion of California’s prisons, jails and re-entry centers. If realignment is to be successful, it must move away from financially and socially disastrous expansion plans, and invest in supporting people returning to our communities.

Governor Brown Acts to Protect Pregnant Women and New Mothers

SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today signed four bills to protect pregnant women and new mothers. The bills ensure maternity services are covered by health insurers and new mothers can no longer lose their health insurance as a result of taking maternity leave.

“Healthy mothers mean healthy babies. I want the next generation of Californians to get the best possible start in life. The bills I signed today require that insurance companies cover maternity services for pregnant women,” said Governor Brown, “and ensures that mothers who take maternity leave no longer have to fear losing their medical coverage.”

The following bills have been signed by Governor Brown:

SB 222 by Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) and AB 210 by Assemblymember Roger Hernandez ( D-Baldwin Park ) – Together, these bills require that every individual and group health insurance policy must provide coverage for maternity services.SB 299 by Senator Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) – This bill prohibits employers from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under group health plans for women who take maternity leave. Governor Brown also signed SB 502 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), the Hospital Infant Feeding Act. This bill will help hospitals promote breast feeding.

 "We applaud Governor Brown for making the rights of pregnant mothers a priority, by signing SB 222,” said Senator Evans, the Chair of the Legislative Women’s Caucus. “SB 222 ensures that women and/or mothers-to-be no longer need to go without maternity care or maternity health insurance coverage.”

While current law does require HMOs and health insurers to include maternity coverage in their group health insurance plans, individually-marketed plans are not subject to that requirement. As a result, inexpensive, “maternity-free” insurance policies have proliferated on the insurance market, and the number of policies that include maternity coverage has dropped from 82 percent in 2004 to only 12 percent in 2010, leaving many California women priced out of the insurance market. While maternity coverage is expected to be included in the new federal health care reform law in 2014, the federal law may not cover all policies.

Health Care Law Looms Over New Supreme Court Term

The Supreme Court is beginning a term expected to be dominated by health care with arguments Monday in a closely watched case involving the Medicaid program for poor Americans.
The first order of business is disposing of appeals in more than a thousand cases that piled up over the summer.

After that, the justices will hear arguments in a case that centers on California's plan to cut Medicaid payments to doctors, hospitals and other medical providers to close the state's budget gap.

The issue is whether the providers and Medicaid recipients can go to federal court to block the reductions from taking effect, claiming they violate the federal Medicaid law.

California, joined by the Obama administration, says only the U.S. Health and Human Services Department can make that call.

The high court began its new term Monday, and President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, which affects almost everyone in the country, is squarely in its sights.

The Obama administration's request last week that the justices resolve whether the health care law is constitutional makes it more likely than not that they will deliver their verdict by June 2012, just as Obama and his Republican opponent charge toward the fall campaign.

Already, GOP presidential contenders use virtually every debate and speech to assail Obama's major domestic accomplishment, which aims to extend health insurance to more than 30 million people now without coverage.

If as now expected the justices agree to review the law's constitutionality, those deliberations would certainly define the court's coming term. Their decision could rank as the court's most significant since the December 2000 ruling that effectively sealed George W. Bush's election as president.

Health care is only one of several issues that the court could hear that would make for a "fantastic Supreme Court term," said former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, now in private practice at the Hogan Lovells law firm.

Other high-profile cases on the horizon concern immigration and affirmative action, hot-button issues at any time and only more so in an election year.

Prison realignment plan makes sense but taxes should not go up to fund it

One of the California Legislature's more reasonable actions has been its so-called prison realignment plan, which shifts responsibility for low-level offenders from the notoriously bureaucratic and wasteful California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to county law enforcement officials.

For starters, California has the highest recidivism rate in the nation; so, this makes reasonable policy sense given that state control has not helped reform this dysfunctional and overcrowded system. Furthermore, local control is a good thing from a democratic perspective as local officials are more
accountable to voters than state officials. Saving money in a tough economic climate is a useful goal also.

Yet many local officials have been frantic about the proposal and some have been claiming that this plan will lead to a dangerous crime wave across California if it goes through without more "funding."
It's against this backdrop that Gov. Jerry Brown last week issued his promise to seek a ballot initiative in November 2012 that provides a state constitutional guarantee of funding for the realignment proposal. He spoke at a Sacramento gathering of local and law enforcement officials who were looking at ways to implement the plan. As is typical with government officials, their main concern was how to get more money from the state's hard-pressed taxpayers.

Brown didn't disappoint. "Don't worry about the money," he told them, according to published reports. "We'll get it to you one way or the other." California taxpayers ought to become concerned about this sort of big-spending talk.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association believes that Brown is almost certainly looking at a measure that would undermine constitutional requirements that require two-thirds local votes to increase local taxes or special taxes. Brown clearly wants to make it easier for local voters to increase taxes on themselves. Indeed, Brown has been upfront since his campaign about his desire for higher taxes in this already highly taxed state – provided that voters approve them. At the local level, public-sector unions are well-funded and can continually support tax increase proposals until they pass.

Undermining the two-thirds vote requirement makes it a matter of when, not if, such tax increases are approved throughout the state. This is particularly galling given that local law enforcement agencies are at the center of the ongoing debate about pension reform. Rich pensions for public safety officials – often topping $100,000 a year, thanks to the "3 percent at 50" formula that allows law enforcement to retire at age 50 with  90 percent or more of their final year's pay – are cutting deeply into local budgets. The reason these agencies don't have enough money to incarcerate low-level criminals is because the departments spend so much on personnel and pension costs. They overspend on bureaucracy building and equipment buying. When they run out of money they complain that they don't have enough to live up to their legal responsibilities.

So they complain to the governor and he tells them not to worry. He will raise taxes on local property owners and find the money "one way or the other." One need only look at the California state government's cost structure, especially in the area of incarceration, to see that we spend far more here than in other states. There's much room for reform. We want to see alternative ideas – i.e., contracting out for services, more competitive bidding, pension reform, prison guard compensation scrutiny and cutting of nonessential services – before being told that there's nothing else to do but make it easier to raise taxes.  We'll wait to see the governor's specific proposal, but this looks like more of the old tax-raising reflex we've come to expect from him.