US turns down No Child Left Behind waiver for California

California has become apparently only the second state — and by far the largest — to be denied a waiver of requirements of the No Child Left Behind education program, state officials said.

Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia have won waivers from provisions of the 2001 law, one of the signature achievements of the administration of former President George W. Bush, while nine other states and Puerto Rico have received conditional approval or have applications pending, according to the U.S. Education Department.


The agency doesn't publicize which states have been turned down, but Iowa is the only other state to have publicly acknowledged that it has been rejected.


California officials got the news Friday by telephone, The San Jose Mercury News reported, quoting Michael Kirst, president of the state Board of Education.

Kirst told the Mercury News that California's unwillingness to tie teacher evaluations to student test scores was what sank the state's request.

The denial wasn't a surprise — Kirst and state school Superintendent Tom Torlakson warned local administrators in an open letter Friday that federal officials had indicated that California's request would be turned down.

"It is disappointing that our state's request — which enjoyed such strong support from parents, teachers, administrators, and education advocates across California — has apparently been rejected," Torlakson said in a separate statement.

Authorization for No Child Left Behind — formal title: the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA — expired in 2007, and Congress hasn't acted to rewrite or refresh it. Last year, the Education Department told the states that they could apply for waivers pending a new law because the current law was "forcing districts into one-size-fits-all solutions that just don't work," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said at the time.

In the meantime, the old law continues to impose student test score standards that keep rising every year, to the point that many states say they're unrealistic in 2012. Critics contend that the law locks states into inflexible standards focused solely on reading and math, neglecting subjects like social studies, the arts, health and physical education.

The old standards require a 100 percent rate of proficiency on standardized reading and math tests by 2014. The penalty for falling short is loss of federal funding for schools serving low-income children.

"On behalf of millions of parents, teachers, administrators and community members who fight for all children every day, we urge you to join us in prioritizing education by coming together to reauthorize and fix No Child Left Behind. We've waited long enough," Betsy Landers, president of the National PTA, wrote in an open letter to President Barack Obama last month.

Torlakson agreed, telling state educators: "The appropriate solution is for Congress to reauthorize the ESEA, replace its inflexible requirements with provisions that accommodate the differences in state policy approaches, and give districts adequate flexibility to improve student achievement."

But that doesn't appear likely to happen any time soon, with Congress transfixed by the looming "fiscal cliff" and immigration reform.

"At the moment, it's unclear if there is a real commitment and consensus in Congress for reauthorizing," Duncan told the Council of Chief State School Officers in a speech last month. "I wish there was a clear commitment and consensus."

via NBC News

Smoking declines in California, but smokeless tobacco use rises among youth

Though the prevalence of cigarette smoking among California high school students has declined over the past decade, smokeless tobacco use has risen among high school students, from 3.1 percent in 2004 to 3.9 percent in 2010, according a report released Thursday.

The report, by Ron Chapman, state health officer and director of the California Department of Public Health, attributed the increase in part to a rise in the promotion and availability of snuff and other smokeless tobacco products.

The study found that the prevalence of smoking was higher at schools in neighborhoods with five or more stores that sell tobacco than at schools in neighborhoods without any stores selling tobacco.

The study also documented a rise in the illegal sale of tobacco to minors. According to the survey, 8.7 percent of retailers sold tobacco to minors this year, up from 5.6 percent in 2011.

"For the first time in the last three years, tobacco retailers are selling tobacco to our youth more often," Chapman said in a conference call with reporters Thursday morning.

Sales of non-cigarette tobacco and nicotine products have risen dramatically over the last decade, from $77.1 million in 2001 to $210.9 million in 2011, according to the report.

"Tobacco use takes a tremendous toll on our state, from both a health and economic perspective," Chapman said in the report. "Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car crashes, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined."

While the adult smoking rate has been cut in half since 1988, from 23 percent to 12 percent of California adults, there remain about 3.6 million smokers in the state, and tobacco use kills more than 34,000 Californians every year, according to the report.

Tobacco-related health care expenses will cost the state $6.5 billion this year, or about $400 per taxpayer, according to the study.

California men continue to smoke at a higher rate, 14.9 percent, than women, 9.3 percent, according to the survey. Black and Latino men smoke at higher rates – 18.9 percent and 15.5 percent respectively – than white men, but Asian men smoke at slightly lower rates.

The report said the tobacco industry spent about $656 million on marketing in 2010.

The study comes after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in May that California used relatively little of the billions of dollars in tobacco money it has to prevent kids from smoking or to help smokers quit.

Chapman said the state has been "very successful" using what money it has to reduce smoking rates.

via The Sacramento Bee

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/14/5053713/smoking-declines-in-california.html#storylink=cpy

Long Beach school board may cut another $13 million

LONG BEACH - The Long Beach Unified Board of Education today will consider closing summer school and freezing open teaching positions next year in a round of budget cuts meant to save $13 million.

While the passage of Proposition 30 prevented severe program cuts, the district is still facing a $20 million deficit in the 2012-2013 fiscal year due to years of state funding cuts, officials said.

The sales tax hike passed last month is meant to provide funding for California's schools.

The district's structural deficit would have ballooned to $55 million next year had Prop. 30 failed, officials said.

The LBUSD is projecting a $57 million deficit by the end of the 2014-2015 fiscal year if it doesn't make reductions.

The first phase of proposed reductions for a savings of $13.8 million includes: Closing grades six through seven at Burcham School, transportation reductions, eliminating summer school in 2013, eliminating the AVID college prep program, cuts to special education, and freezing open positions for teachers and other staff.

As part of this reduction plan, the board last month voted to close Monroe K-8 school in Lakewood for a savings of $2.7 million. The closing of the AVID program, which stands for Advancement Via Individual Determination, would save $1 million annually.

The board in coming months is expected to also consider other budget reductions, which could include more small school closures, reductionsto programs and services, and other measures designed to safeguard the LBUSD's fiscal health, officials said.

The Board of Education meets today at 5 p.m. at 1515 Hughes Way.

via Press Telegram

Court decision a boost for California's budget

A Thursday decision by a federal appeals court could be worth $659 million a year for California's budget.

The court's ruling allows the state to move forward with a cut to Medi-Cal reimbursement rates, meaning doctors and other healthcare providers will be paid less for providing services to poor Californians who use the program.

Gov. Jerry Brown tried to make the cut in June 2011, but lawsuits and negotiations with the federal government had placed it on hold until now. Healthcare providers who sued to block the cuts say they'll appeal Thursday's decision.

Still, administration officials are preparing to save $659 million annually. The administration's budget projections always expected that the state would win the case eventually, but the victory came sooner than expected, said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for Brown's Department of Finance.

The court ruling is also retroactive, which allows the state to try recouping $245 million that was paid in the year and a half since the cut was supposed to start.

Palmer said the state would pursue the retroactive savings, but did not say how.

The full story, written with Maura Dolan, ran in Friday's Los Angeles Times.

via LA Times

Corporate Taxes on Table in Cliff Talks

By DAMIAN PALETTA, JANET HOOK and CAROL E. LEE—Jared A. Favole contributed to this article.
Via the Wall Street JournalThe White House has told Republicans it would include an overhaul of the corporate-tax code as part of any deal to reduce the deficit, people familiar with the talks said, a move to court business groups as budget negotiations intensify.

Corporate taxes hadn't until now been part of budget talks aimed at averting spending cuts and tax increases set for January. Much of the focus has instead been on the expiring individual income-tax rates.

The offer from the White House came amid a fresh round of proposals from both sides, as President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner exchanged counteroffers to address the so-called fiscal cliff. Big gaps remain between Democratic and Republican negotiators, and while talks are continuing, there is no guarantee a deal will be struck, with or without a corporate-tax revamp.

On Wednesday, Mr. Boehner criticized Mr. Obama's latest plan, saying it is unbalanced by focusing too much on tax increases. "His plan does not begin to solve our debt crisis; it actually increases spending," Mr. Boehner said.

The White House's corporate-tax suggestion wasn't specific, according to officials familiar with the offer, other than committing to overhaul the corporate tax code in 2013. White House officials, in making the suggestion, cited a corporate-tax plan the administration unveiled in February but said they weren't wedded to any specifics.

Left unclear is the crucial question of how any revamp would affect companies' overall tax burden. That is one reason why Republicans considered it a tactical offer only, and not one that might help seal a deal.

As part of its budget proposal, the White House also slightly lowered its target for new tax revenue to $1.4 trillion, down from Mr. Obama's initial offer of $1.6 trillion, officials said. It retained items from an earlier offer that had irked Republicans, included new stimulus spending and an increase in the U.S.'s borrowing limit.

Mr. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, responded Tuesday with a proposal that wasn't "dramatically" different from the one he made to the White House last week, according to an official familiar with the talks, who declined to elaborate.

The flurry of activity showed the talks were moving along, albeit haltingly. Messrs. Boehner and Obama discussed the negotiations by phone Tuesday evening. The White House in recent days also has been talking with Democratic leaders about the types of spending cuts that might accompany any deal, to calm increasing queasiness in the party over the direction of the talks.

In a brief update on the House floor earlier Tuesday, Mr. Boehner asked, "Where are the president's spending cuts?" He added: "We are still waiting for the White House to identify what specific cuts the president is willing to make." He accused the White House of "slow-walking" the talks. Republicans viewed the White House's latest offer as not that different from its first—heavy on new taxes and light on ideas to trim spending.

Political reaction to the corporate-tax idea split along party lines. A senior Democratic aide described the addition as a smart way of making concessions without having to touch entitlement programs.

Republicans said they didn't consider the move a concession at all, given their assumption that the corporate tax code would be tackled at some point. "It's a red herring," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel. He said keeping individual rates low was a more immediate priority because of its impact on small businesses, many of which aren't structured as corporations, and whose owners pay taxes through the individual tax system.

The White House earlier this year proposed lowering the corporate rate to 28% from 35%, and even lower for manufacturing companies. Lower rates would be combined with eliminating some tax deductions in the White House plan, with the net effect being that the tax burden on companies would remain about the same. But it would be a simpler and clearer system, which many CEOs have sought.

Many Republicans have offered similar proposals, though their proposals call for lowering the corporate rate to 25%. Neither plan gained any traction.

An overhaul of the corporate-tax code came up repeatedly during Mr. Obama's recent meetings to discuss the fiscal cliff with chief executives at the White House. Some CEOs signaled a willingness to accept higher individual tax rates to bring in more revenue, but they said the corporate code needed to be redrawn because it hurt U.S. competitiveness. By agreeing to include an overhaul of the corporate-tax code as part of these discussions, the White House could be trying to further attract business groups to its deficit-reduction plan.Democrats and Republicans involved in the cliff talks are trying to design a two-phase timetable. If a deal is reached, it would lock in some changes to taxes and spending rules by the end of 2012 and then require a number of more significant changes next year to entitlement programs and the tax code. The White House's corporate-tax plan would fit into the second phase, giving lawmakers, White House officials and business groups time to work through the details.
The White House's February proposal to redesign the corporate tax code received a lukewarm reception from business groups. Many were supportive of the proposal to lower rates but worried about which industries might get hurt by an accompanying elimination of tax breaks. Many large businesses were also unhappy the White House didn't back a proposal to shield profits from foreign affiliates from U.S. taxation.

Still, business groups saw that early proposal as a starting point, and hoped it would lead to a comprehensive deal, a point several echoed on Tuesday during a conference call organized by the Business Roundtable trade group.

"Start at wiping out all of the deductions, figuring out where that tax rate is—whether it's 25%, 22%, 15%, whatever it is," said Douglas Oberhelman, the chief executive of construction-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. CAT +0.71% "I think all of us are on that wavelength today to begin the process."

Corporate income taxes make up about 10% of revenue collected by the government. In the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, the government received $2.449 trillion in revenue, with $242 billion of that coming from corporate income taxes.

Big differences remain between the two sides, and in public the Republicans and Democrats continued to hammer at each others' ideas.

The administration's new proposal made no major concessions on entitlements such as Medicare, which it is withholding until Republicans give up ground on tax rates. Republicans likewise want first to see more details on spending cuts.

The Business Roundtable for the first time Tuesday backed the possibility of higher tax rates as part of a broader package of changes to reduce the deficit. The group previously called for extending all the Bush-era tax rates.

John Engler, president of the Business Roundtable, an influential trade group that represents large corporations, said he thought a proposal to overhaul the corporate tax code would be well-received by Democrats and Republicans, but wouldn't be enough to replace Republican demands for spending cuts. Still, he said it would help expand the scope of the package, which could ultimately draw more backers.

A small but growing number of Republicans have argued that the party should give up on blocking any rate increase on higher-income Americans and instead shift focus to securing spending cuts as part of the deal.

Some Democrats regard Republicans' eventual concession on taxes as a foregone conclusion, and they have begun to talk among themselves about which concessions on entitlement programs they might be asked to make.

The three leading proposals floated by Republicans include increasing the eligibility age for Medicare, requiring wealthier people to pay more for Medicare and changing the formula for calculating Consumer Price Index adjustments to slow the growth of Social Security benefits.Many Democrats are especially concerned about looming Medicare cuts if they include a GOP proposal to raise the eligibility age. "If people are working in coal mines in West Virginia, it's really inhumane to talk about raising the eligibility age," said House Assistant Democratic Leader Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, who is close to Mr. Obama. "For those of us in air-conditioned offices to talk about raising the age, that's fine for us to say."

Many Democrats acknowledge that any deficit-reduction package will include proposals they don't like. "There's no way to do this without both sides giving up something," said Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D., N.D.).

Administration officials have been engaged in conversations with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to bring them along as Mr. Obama negotiates with Mr. Boehner. Those conversations have picked up in recent days as the White House takes soundings from Democratic leaders on what might be possible for the party to stomach in a final deal.

Republicans are frustrated that they haven't secured larger spending-cut commitments from Mr. Obama in exchange for what they see as a major and early concession from Mr. Boehner on tax revenue, said people familiar with the talks.

In his speech Tuesday, Mr. Boehner argued that Mr. Obama's proposed tax increase barely scratches the surface of the deficit problem.

"Even if we did exactly what the president wants, we would see red as far as the eye can see," Mr. Boehner told the House. Aides said Mr. Boehner decided to make the speech because he believed recent reports of tentative progress in his talks with Mr. Obama played down differences that remain on spending.

The White House rejected Mr. Boehner's complaint that Mr. Obama hadn't put forward detailed spending cuts.

"What we haven't seen from Republicans to this day is a single specific proposal on revenue," White House spokesman Jay Carney said. "And in fact, we've seen less specificity from Republicans on spending cuts than the president himself has proposed."

Education is essential to prison reform

In 1989, five 14-to 15-year-old boys, four black and one Hispanic, were convicted of a crime they did not commit. They spent between five and  11 years in juvenile delinquent centers and prisons in New York. Though the boys were victims of institutional racism and a flawed justice system that robbed them of a significant portion of their youth, none of them wasted their time behind bars. Though their imprisonment interrupted their high school careers, each one of them took and passed the General Education Development Test while incarcerated.

A documentary co-directed by Ken Burns that opened in Los Angeles last week, the Central Park Five(which the media infamously dubbed the group) tells the story of these boys’ incarceration and eventual acquittal. Though I strongly recommend seeing the film for many reasons, from its accurate portrayal of a deeply flawed American justice system, news media and society to amazing footage and interviews, the fact that all five got their GEDs in prison should remind us of the powerful role that correctional education plays in prison reform.

The prison system remains a widespread, deep problem in the United States. And though California is especially known for incarceration issues — overcrowding, abuses, inefficient prisons and more — the state is beginning to spearhead a prison reform trend. Last year, Gov. Jerry Brown signed his realignment plan into law, moving thousands of inmates from state prison to county jails with a dual goal of saving the state money and relieving overcrowding by redirecting lower-level offenders to local authorities who can better handle them. This year, in the 2012 election, Californians voted by a wide margin to reform the state’s three-strikes law, making it so not any individual convicted of his or her third felony would automatically receive a life sentence, but, instead, only if the individual committed a serious or violent crime.

Both of these historic changes indicate a shift in how Californians perceive and want criminal justice to be handled by the government. And both measures have made significant differences already — there have been drops in the number of offenders, crowding reductions and billions of dollars saved — but the struggle to reform our prisons still needs to go deeper.

According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 95 percent of California state prison inmates will be released to society. And the average offender in California reads at an eighth-grade level. Such a low reading level likely means that once released, offenders will be unable to secure anything but an extremely low-level, low-paying, low-reward job, which in turn makes it much more likely for them to re-offend and be sent back to prison.

There’s something wrong with this picture. It is a cyclical problem that California, as a state poised to lead a growing trend, must break with by making correctional education a bigger part of the prison reform movement.

California prisons do offer amazing education programs — 32 out of 33 CDCR institutions are fully accredited schools that offer vocational training, English as a second language courses and the option to obtain high school diplomas and GED certificates. Such programs are essential to easing individuals back into society and providing them with the tools that will prevent them from becoming repeat offenders.

Obviously, opposition for correctional education is strong. Why provide criminals with the right to education? This kind of thinking is understandable, but has no place in a state where prisons are overcrowded and suck money from the state. Correctional education is one of the best ways to get at the root of the state’s prison problem, which arguably begins and ends with education. According to a 2010 study conducted by The Foundation for Educational Choice, more than 50 percent of all U.S. inmates are high school dropouts.

Education — or lack thereof — might not be the direct reason many individuals end up in prison, but more likely than not, it played some part in it. Because of this, Brown should not only continue to support correctional education, but also make it a central focus of his efforts to reform California prisons.

Elena Kadvany is a senior majoring in Spanish and is the Daily Trojan’s Editorial Director. Her column “Beyond the Classroom” ran every other Thursday.

Via Daily Trojan

California budget spends less than U.S. average on education

Education may be the largest single segment of California's budget, but the state proportionately spends less of its money on elementary and high schools and colleges than the national average, according to a new Census Bureau report.

The statistic is gleaned from the bureau's annual report on state government finances, the latest of which covers 2011.

The report tallies California's "general expenditures" last year at just under $225 billion -- spending from both the state's own taxes and other resources as well as $64.5 billion in federal funds. Education is almost $75 billion of that, according to the report -- or exactly one-third, somewhat below the national average of 35.8 percent.

California's level of education spending in 2011 was fractionally lower than in 2010. Other states ranged from a high of 46.6 percent in Georgia to a low of 24.9 percent in Alaska.

Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/12/california-budget-spends-less-than-us-average-on-education.html#storylink=cpy

Via Sacramento Bee

What do you think about this: A Sure Way to Improve Criminal Justice: Record Confessions

In 2003, following an exposé of several questionable "confessions" obtained by Illinois police which resulted in murder convictions and in some cases death sentences for persons who were later exonerated, legislation was proposed in the Illinois legislature to require custodial interrogations in homicide investigations to be electronically recorded. Barack Obama, then a little-known member of the Illinois Senate, took the lead in negotiating with members of the law enforcement community who opposed electronic recording.

After lengthy give and take, Illinois enacted a law requiring that custodial interrogations of individuals suspected of murder must be recorded from beginning to end. This was the first law of its kind in this country. Now, ten years later, legislation and court rules provide for electronic recording of custodial interviews in Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Wisconsin. Other state legislatures and supreme courts are considering adopting similar laws. And exercising sound judgment, many police and sheriff departments throughout the nation now electronically record custodial interviews even when they are not legally required to do so.

The particular requirements vary somewhat from state to state. There are differences, for example, as to which suspected felonies trigger the recording requirement, what exigent circumstances can excuse non-recording, whether the recording must be audio or video, and whether a violation of the requirement mandates the presumed inadmissibility of the confession or merely a cautionary jury instruction. Although there may be one, uniform, ideal approach to these questions, there are also reasonable arguments to support the different approaches taken in various states.

After some hesitation and resistance, law enforcement's reception of these statewide recording mandates has become extremely positive. They recognize the many benefits of recording confessions: detectives are better able to concentrate on the interview rather than on note taking; there are no longer disputes about what was said and done during the interrogation; officers who might otherwise be tempted to play fast-and-loose with the rules are deterred from doing so; it is more difficult for interviewed suspects to bring trumped-up charges against police officers for alleged misconduct; and public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system is enhanced. All in all, this common sense reform has worked extraordinarily well.

Nonetheless, there are still some national, state and local law enforcement organizations that vehemently oppose statewide laws or court rules on electronic recording. Although they no longer dispute that recording is, in theory, a good idea, they nonetheless insist that each police and sheriff department in the nation should be free to adopt its own "best practices," which means that every local department could decide for itself whether or not to record, and if so when and how. Their reasons for opposing statewide rules are sketchy, at best. For example, they argue that "every locale is different" and that defense lawyers will use recordings to "get guilty criminals off." These are simply unwarranted objections. 

As a practical matter, wholly localized rules would produce a hodgepodge of different requirements and procedures within a single state and a complete lack of statewide uniformity. The result would be dramatically unequal treatment for individuals who are brought in for questioning, for their rights would vary from one station house to the next based entirely on the fortuity of which department is undertaking the investigation. That is incompatible with elemental notions of fairness and sound law enforcement policy. And beyond that, such a melange of localized rules would produce no coherent mechanism to insure compliance. If the "rules" have no legally binding effect, then individual suspects would be left to the very discretion of investigating officers that a uniform, mandatory recording policy is meant to constrain.

In New York State, the Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals established a Task Force on Criminal Justice Reform made up of judges, prosecutors, police officials, defense lawyers, and academics. In recommending statewide legislation rather than optional "best practices" as determined by each local department, the Task Force determined that "electronic recording of interrogations was simply too critical to identifying false confessions and preventing wrongful convictions to recommend as a voluntary rather than mandatory reform."

This is a simple problem, with a simple solution. The use of electronic recordings has resulted in increased police professionalism, preclusion of testimonial disputes about what took place during closed-door interrogations, fewer motions to suppress confessions, more pleas of guilty, fewer false confessions, fewer wrongful prosecutions and unjust convictions, and substantial savings of time and money. The time has come for all law enforcement organizations to support mandatory state laws that require the use of electronic recording systems during custodial interviews. This is a simple, sensible and effective way to improve our nation's system of criminal justice.

This article was co-authored by Thomas Sullivan, a lawyer with Jenner & Block, Chicago (1954-77, 1981-present) and former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (1977-1981).

Via Huffington Post

Taking a close look at the state's correctional system

By James Austin

After decades of prison planning work in California and around the country, I’ve seen two prevailing assumptions about crime and punishment begin to finally begin to crack after years of real-world testing. 

The first is that prisons are the primary way to reduce crime. The second is that law enforcement will not support changes that reduce incarceration. Both of these changing perceptions are converging now in California just when the state must make major changes to protect its public safety and fiscal security. 

First, some context. California has been experiencing its lowest crime rates since 1960, according to the latest statewide data (from 2011).  This drop is partly due to demographics (an aging population) and other external factors, but improvements in policing procedures and better coordination between law enforcement also play a critical role.

In 1960, California’s prison population was less than 22,000. If you applied that year’s incarceration rate to today’s crime rate and total population, the state would only have 52,000 prisoners – well under the current state prison population of about 130,000 California’s actual total. This dramatic rise is because the state, over the decades, dramatically increased the number of people it sent to prison and the length of their imprisonment.   

However, a growing body of science shows that prison-only approaches may feel good initially – and be safe politically – but an over-reliance on incarceration ultimately can make things worse. In other words, there is limited scientific evidence that prison reduces crime, or that longer prison terms reduce recidivism or crime rates.

California’s own California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation data show that people serving one, two or three years have the same recidivism rates. We also know that the vast majority of people arrested in California are not recently released prisoners. Meanwhile, New York and New Jersey have significantly reduced their prison populations and continued to lower their crime rates.

That’s good news for California, because in 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California must reduce its badly crowded prison population in 2013. The legislative result was public safety realignment, which moved responsibility of people convicted of nonviolent, non-sex, non-serious crimes from state prisons and parole to local county jails and probation officers.

Now more than a year into this landmark approach, some counties are seeing previous or new programs (alternatives to incarceration) bear fruit, but many are also struggling with overcrowding and added costs. This has forced some sheriffs to release people that they otherwise would send to jail or state prison.

Making matters worse, the state will not be able to meet the federal deadline and may have to reduce the number of people in state prisons by as many as 15,000 by the end of 2013. To confront this challenge, a federal panel of judges asked me to work with the CDCR to develop a plan that will safely reduce the prison population without jeopardizing the low crime rate.

It can be done, but the real task will be the politics – not the science – of reducing a huge, expensive prison population. Fortunately, some leaders in law enforcement are stepping forward to help policymakers make necessary changes.

Take, for example, the role they played in the passage of Proposition 36.  Voters – by a two-to-one margin – passed the initiative, which revises the state’s 1994 three strikes law so that only violent felonies will count as a third strike that would lock someone up for 25 years to life. According to election night polling by Californians for Safety and Justice, voters wanted to reform three strikes for a variety of reasons, including its excessive sentences for petty crimes and to reserve prison space for more dangerous crimes.  

However, seven in 10 voters supported the change because of its fiscal impact. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office predicts that the adjustment made by Proposition 36 would save more than $100 million each year. The percent of California’s general fund dedicated to corrections has risen from 2.9% in 1981 to 10.5% last year.

But attempts to reform the three strikes law and other justice policies have used fiscal argument before – unsuccessfully. I believe the key to Proposition 36’s success was support from district attorneys in Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose, as well as police leaders like LAPD Chief Charlie Beck. They are on the front lines of law enforcement and their perspectives carry great weight with voters.  

We have more work to do. Reducing the justice system’s costs without compromising public safety starts with the acknowledgement that state has, for too long, punished people beyond its means, and too often those punishments did not fit the crime – or ultimately improve public safety. Fortunately, there are models in practice that counties can implement or expand for immediate impact.  

San Francisco, Contra Costa and Santa Cruz are among many counties use split sentences –the person spends part of the time on supervised probation and the rest incarcerated – to ensure their jail populations do not increase post-realignment. Contra Costa County has shortened probation terms (18 months or less versus three- to five-year terms), which has produced significantly lower recidivism rates and probation caseloads. 

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has launched a comprehensive rehabilitation program to reduce jail violence and recidivism, and soon will begin a pilot pre-trial program that monitors low-risk offenders in the community as the await trial, instead of having them sit in crowded jails.

These approaches and others show that we can safely reduce jail and prison populations, but only if brave policymakers and leaders in law enforcement continue to test the faltering assumptions that prison is the first or only answer to crime, and that law enforcement is not open to change.

via Capitol Weekley

Are Conservatives Rethinking their Hostility to Criminal Justice Reform?

Tough-on-crime usually means tough-on-taxpayers.

Steven Greenhut 

For advocates of less-intrusive government, finding the good news in the recent election is like looking on the bright side after your house has been wiped out by a hurricane. You never did like that floor plan, anyway, and this seems like a great opportunity to rethink your lifestyle.

The political storm was particularly fearsome in California. Democrats already are floating trial balloons now that they have gained a legislative supermajority that allows them to pass direct tax increases without GOP support.

But there was some good news, however slim, on the ballot in the long-neglected area of criminal-justice reform. California voters passed, by a 69 percent to 31 percent margin, a measure (Proposition 36) that reforms the state’s notoriously tough three-strikes-and-you’re-out sentencing law.

In 1994, California voters passed Proposition 184, which targeted repeat offenders. Under that law, if a person convicted of two serious or violent felonies commits a third “strike,” it would automatically lead to a life term with no possibility of parole for 25 years. The verdict is out on how much “three strikes” contributed to falling crime rates, but there is little question that California’s strict version led to rising incarceration costs and high-profile instances of injustice.

Unlike any of the other 23 states that passed “three strikes” laws, California imposed the life sentence on offenders whose third conviction was for “any” felony, rather than for a serious or violent one. So we’ve witnessed cases where offenders have received that life term for stealing a piece of pizza, kiting a bad check, and other relatively minor crimes.

The costs of implementing the law are enormous, especially in a state where the union-controlled, overcrowded, and arguably inhumane prison system costs the taxpaying public $47,000 a year to incarcerate a criminal. Studies put the estimated savings of Prop. 36’s passage at $70 million to $200 million annually, which is significant even in spendthrift California.

Under Prop. 36,  a criminal receives a life term only if the third strike is violent or serious or if the offender is previously convicted of child molestation, murder, or rape. In other cases, if the third strike is not violent or serious, the offender receives a doubled sentence.

The good news is the reform effort sparked little controversy. A number of prominent conservatives spoke out in favor of Prop. 36, including Grover Norquist, the nationally prominent defender of the “no new taxes” pledge. He was quoted in the ballot argument: “The Three Strikes Reform Act is tough on crime without being tough on taxpayers. It will put a stop to needlessly wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayers’ hard-earned money, while protecting people from violent crime.”

Norquist also is a member of a group called Right on Crime, which officially endorsed Prop. 36. Its membership—i.e., former Ronald Reagan attorney general Ed Meese, potential Republican presidential contenders Jeb Bush and Newt Gingrich—isn’t filled with people who send contributions to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Right on Crime argues: “Conservatives are known for being tough on crime, but we must also be tough on criminal justice spending. That means demanding more cost-effective approaches that enhance public safety. A clear example is our reliance on prisons, which serve a critical role by incapacitating dangerous offenders and career criminals but are not the solution for every type of offender. And in some instances, they have the unintended consequence of hardening nonviolent, low-risk offenders—making them a greater risk to the public than when they entered.” It’s significant that conservatives would jump-start this discussion, which is needed now that Republicans are regrouping and trying to put together a bundle of government-reform issues that might appeal to the nation’s voters.

Despite the general impression that California is a left-wing hothouse, it has long been a law-and-order state where both parties have played cynically on the public’s oftentimes legitimate fears about crime. There’s been little willingness here to do more than build more prisons and throw more money at a system dominated by the powerful prison-guards union, which has lobbied against reforms to protect its “business.”

When I got to California in 1998, it was toward the end of the gubernatorial race that pitted Republican Attorney General Dan Lungren against Democratic Lieutenant Gov. Gray Davis. Both men were engaging in a “tough on crime” arms race which reached the most absurd levels when, as The New York Times reported, Davis “said in a televised debate, on issues of law and order, he considered Singapore—a country that executes drug offenders—‘a good starting point.’”

Davis was later recalled and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger who, despite his long list failures, did try, unsuccessfully, to take on the guards and buck the orthodoxy of conservatives who found law-and-order to be their only winning issue outside of holding the line on taxes. Both parties were appealing to voters who, according to a recent San Jose Mercury News analysis, voted only five times since 1912 “to curb the power of the state's criminal justice system.”

The GOP has a great opportunity to focus on justice and cost savings given that the California Democratic Party has let its union domination trump any concern about civil liberties and it has never cared about protecting the public from excessive taxation. Since Davis, the Democrats have refused to be outflanked on the right on public-safety issues. They have a simple approach to criminal justice matters: Give the police and prison guards’ unions anything they want.

Perhaps the opportunity simply is born of receding public fear as crime levels drop to historic lows. Whatever the case, with the passage of Prop. 36 and the emergence of Right on Crime, there’s a clear blueprint for Republicans who want to put into practice their oft-stated promises about reforming and limiting government.

via Reason.com

California Lawmakers Face Tight Deadline To Tackle Health Reform

CALIFORNIA — California lawmakers are up against a tight deadline to get the state ready for the full rollout of healthcare reform. A variety of major decisions need to be made quickly.

States are required to launch their new online insurance marketplaces by January 2014. But California wants to open registration next October.

Anthony Wright, who directs the non-profit groupHealth Access California, said the state must get ready to add about 2 million people to the Medi-Calprogram. Wright said lawmakers need to pass some rules to make the enrollment process as easy as possible. That's because there's a lot of money at stake.

"The federal government will pick up 100 percent of the newly eligible people in Medi-Cal for three years," Wright explained. "Then, in the fourth year, it goes down to 95 percent, and then onward at 90 percent, which is still a 9-to-1 match even in 2020 and beyond."

The state is in essence transforming its insurance market. Lawmakers will need to decide how much insurers can charge people based on age, and whether they'll be allowed to charge more based on where someone lives.

Wright said the pressure is on.

"The goal is to start signing Californians up in October 2013, which is less than 10 months away now. So there's a lot of work to do and a short amount of time to do it," he added.

Lawmakers have already approved a basic level of benefits that all health plans must include.

Governor Jerry Brown is expected to call a special legislative session in January to focus on healthcare reform.

via KPBS

No-Cost Health Care Plan Takes Burden Off Low-Income

BERKELEY, Calif. – A routine physical in 2004 at LifeLong Medical Care, a community health center in West Berkeley, showed Kelly Parker, unemployed and uninsured for almost two years, that she was overweight and had diabetes.

Doctors at the center quickly put Parker, then 30, on medications, urged her to go on a diet and follow an exercise regimen – all for little or no cost. The incentive was enough for Parker to never miss a doctor’s appointment or periodic checkups at the clinic from then on.

“The only thing I had to spend from my pocket was the co-pay which, back in 2004, was $5, but later went up to $10 and then to $15,” she said.

On one of her visits to the clinic last year, LifeLong told her she qualified for HealthPAC (Health Program of Alameda County), a program the county launched in July 2011. LifeLong told her they would enroll her in it right away. And what was “really nice” about being in the program, she was told, was that as a HealthPAC member she wouldn’t have to make co-payments when she came to the clinic, and medicines would cost her nothing. Additionally, enrollment was free and membership needed to be renewed only once a year.

“It was great, and I was happy,” Parker said.

HealthPAC replaced the County Medical Service Program /Access to Care for Everyone (CMSP/ACE), which was available to Alameda County residents whose income was under 200 percent of the federal poverty level (fpl), or $22,340 for an individual. Two of HealthPAC’s components – HealthPAC Medi-Cal Expansion (MCE) and HealthPAC Health Care Coverage Initiative (HCCI) are part of California’s Low-Income Health Program (LIHP), a “bridge” to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which is set to be fully implemented on Jan. 1, 2014. When that happens, HealthPAC MCE patients will be absorbed into Medi-Cal (called Medicaid in the rest of the nation).

The third component, HealthPAC County, provides coverage for even the undocumented, and is not a part of LIHP.

Medicaid Expansion

One of the provisions in the ACA would expand Medicaid, the federal-state safety net for low-income Americans. Among other things, the expansion eliminates some of the current eligibility requirements in Medicaid, like the so-called “asset test” where an individual cannot have financial assets exceeding $2,000, as well as the requirement that an individual has to have a child under 21.

California, as well as six other states in the nation, sought the so-called Medicaid 1115 waiver that states were allowed to apply for last year to set up LIHP so they would be ready for the expansion in 2014. The waiver allows the states to draw down federal dollars to finance the program. Only a handful of counties in California, including Fresno, have opted out of LIHP.

Over the next two years, Alameda County, as well as other counties that have set up LIHP, will pay half the cost for the program, and the federal government will pay the other half. By 2014, when patients like Parker become eligible for Medi-Cal, the federal government will pick up the entire tab.

The California Health Care Exchange, an online federally subsidized insurance marketplace, also set to launch on Jan. 1, 2014, will absorb HealthPAC (HCCI) enrollees – those whose family income is between 134 and 200 percent of the fpl.

Between the two provisions, millions more low-income people are expected to have health insurance coverage, closing the gap between the insured and the uninsured. 

Not an Insurance

HealthPAC coverage is not insurance, and in Alameda County, it cannot be used outside the Alameda County Medical Center and the 11 community health clinics in the HealthPAC network. The program allows patients to receive free primary and specialty care, chronic disease management, medication and emergency treatment. 

Most of the enrollment is done when patients go to the county’s network of hospitals and clinics. LifeLong Medical Care is in the network, which is where Parker was enrolled.

HealthPAC administrator Danice Cook said there has been a surge in enrollment in all three components of the county’s low-income health programs since it changed its name to HealthPAC in 2011 because people can associate the name with health care. There are currently about 85,000 people enrolled, the largest percentage of them from the Hispanic community (42 percent), followed by Asian/Pacific Islanders (16 percent), African Americans (14 percent), whites (9 percent), 8 percent in the “other” category and 11 percent whose ethnicity is unknown. 

Unlike Medi-Cal, where the eligibility requirement includes having to be between 19 and 64, have a family income at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level (about $14,500 for an individual and $29,700 for a family of four), have a child under 21, and a US citizenship for at least five years, HealthPAC enrolls even childless individuals in that same age group, with family incomes between 0 and 200 percent of the fpl. The citizenship requirement remains the same.

“In most ways the scope of services mirrors Medi-Cal, but there are some differences,” said Danice Cook, HealthPAC administrator with the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency. “The biggest difference is the limited network of providers and differences in the way that pharmacy and other ancillary services are provided.” 

Cook noted that HealthPAC is a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of people.

“A program such as HealthPAC is important because it provides some form of access to basic and ongoing primary and preventive care services for uninsured participants who are typically not eligible for public health insurance programs, can’t afford private insurance and/or not getting employer-sponsored insurance,” she said.

Parker is glad that HealthPAC’s eligibility requirements are not as stringent as Medi-Cal’s. When she lost her job in an East Bay flower shop in 2002, and with it her employer-sponsored health insurance, she said she tried unsuccessfully to get on Medi-Cal. 

“I was told I was not eligible,” she said, speculating it could be because she was a childless adult.

Last year, Parker adopted a 2-year-old boy. She realizes that as a responsible mother, she needs to take better care of her health.

“I have a new responsibility,” she said, adding: “But having a HealthPAC (MCE) card gives me a lot of peace of mind.” 

This article was made possible by a grant from The California Endowment, and was produced as part of New America Media’s series on the Affordable Care Act.

via New American Media